If I don't respond it's because I've just gone ahead and muted you 🤷♂️
California
Joined March 2008
- Tweets70K
- Following939
- Followers594
- Likes102K
They call me bruce retweeted
All the best people declare war on Hogwarts. Have you ever considered dividing your gender identity into separate pieces and storing it in hidden objects, so you can’t be invalidated to death?
They call me bruce retweeted
ONE WAS KNOWN 4 SAYING THEY CAN'T BREATHE ONCE WHEN THEY WERE JUST SITTING IN AN AIR CONDITIONED VEHICLE N THEN A SHORT TIME LATER WHEN THEY STARTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF DAMAGE N HAD 8 BLOCKS OF SEATTLE OCCUPIED
THE OTHER SQUIRTED BLOOD FROM HIS NECK WHEN HE WAS SHOT N PEOPLE CRIED
They call me bruce retweeted
I mean, this is basically right. The right made fun of George Floyd because they think it’s absurd to venerate a multiple-time convicted criminal, degenerate, drug addict.
The left mocks Charlie Kirk because they think it’s absurd to venerate a conservative Christian.
Rightists have trouble understanding why Charlie Kirk jokes are funny.
Maybe I can explain it in a way you can understand.
People make jokes when a situation is absurd, and more specifically, when others demand you say something untrue about a person and treat them with more respect than they deserved.
George Floyd died. You conservatives thought jokes about St Floyd were funny. In your mind, he was a criminal and a drug addict, and leftists had treated him like the Second Coming of Jesus. Or think about how you'll see a trans person playing basketball with biological women, which leftists tell you is fine and normal, and how funny it is to laugh at this.
Similarly, most Americans do not share your personal admiration for Charlie Kirk. They think he was a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. He was also not in any way a thinker or someone who contributed positively to the discourse, but a political hack who formed his opinions based on tribal considerations and owning the libs.
When Charlie Kirk died, you went around cancelling people for being insufficiently sad. Even if someone said they were sad about his death and they just thought he didn't deserve to be admired, in those cases rightists still tried to destroy people's lives. Republicans in Congress started calling for a statue of Charlie Kirk in the US Capitol, and others introduced legislation to put his face on coins.
As of April 2026, an AP article identified more than 60 Kirk-themed bills introduced across over 20 states. Among these was one in Florida that threatened to take away funding from universities if they didn't rename a road after Charlie Kirk.
Outside of your bubble in which Charlie Kirk was a great thinker and leader, this is all ridiculous.
So when people at a Chappelle show hear the name "Charlie Kirk," they're not thinking about the human being and father. They're associating the name with rightists trying to create a cult of personality, and are employing humor, which is common when people are facing a movement that is trying to tell them what to do.
They call me bruce retweeted
3rd wave feminism holds this weird position that women sexualizing themselves is empowering but men viewing women sexually is evil. So you end up with such schizophrenic situations, where the woman showing her bare ass in public is not a pervert, but the guy looking at it is.
This quoted post is unavailable.
They call me bruce retweeted
This boy competing as a girl at the Washington State Cross Country high school championship is at least a head taller than the girls. Another girls team lost out on going to state because of his points resulting in the Camas girls team ending up at state instead.
They call me bruce retweeted
Human right: Not to be imprisoned with the opposite sex.
"Trans right”: To be imprisoned with the opposite sex.
“Trans rights” are not human rights.
They call me bruce retweeted
So in summary: you want all women's single-sex spaces and services taken away to accommodate men who claim their 'gender identity feels different from what [their] body is.' You can't explain what a gender identity is, or explain what it means to 'feel' female, as opposed to being female, but you still think society should reconfigure itself around an unfalsifiable concept that cannot be objectively observed or proven, in spite of the well-evidenced risk to women and girls this poses.
They call me bruce retweeted
Smug self-certitude is a powerful drug: someday we will all hail this man who went from placing 65th in the 500 meter dash as a man to winning the NCAA championship while competing against women as a great pioneering hero of the civil rights movement of the 21st century and praise the cohort of male athletes who followed in his wake to dominate women's sports as the vanguard of a beautiful future where no woman has a right to draw a boundary between herself and any man who claims to be a woman.
The Arc of History is long, but it bends toward 6'1" men stripping naked in the locker room next to women who are forbidden from expressing discomfort lest they be accused of hateful bigotry and have their livelihoods ruined by an army of vengeful fanatics who tell themselves they are the righteous for destroying the sexual function and fertility of confused children and deploying state power to punish women who want a refuge of bodily privacy away from men.
It's inevitable!
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
They call me bruce retweeted
A trans person is a person whose gender identity does not align with their body. Sports are divided by bodies not identities.
They call me bruce retweeted
In the bluest state in the country, in the bluest tsunami you can imagine, Phil Scott still won. By being a pro-growth moderate. Aided by Democrats picking a candidate who is an anti-growth radical.
I am BEGGING both parties to learn from this!
They call me bruce retweeted
If your VERY FIRST reaction to watching a horrific Learjet crash is “That looks fake,” “It was a missile,” or “Where’s the debris?” then congratulations. You’ve just identified yourself as the perfect mark for every conspiracy grifter on the internet.
It’s the same breathtaking stupidity that gave us the 9/11 Pentagon “missile” and “missing debris” conspiracy theories.
A horrific tragedy unfolds before your eyes, and before you know a single fact, your first instinct is to invent a conspiracy. STFU & GTFO!
You’re not “just asking questions.” You’re broadcasting your ignorance, your gullibility, and your complete inability to distinguish evidence from bullshit.
And the people exploiting these tragedies know EXACTLY who you are. They know how to manipulate you, outrage you, and keep you coming back for another helping of manufactured mystery.
They turn human suffering into conspiracy content, and you eagerly spread it for them.
You think you’re exposing a cover-up. You’re actually exposing how easily you can be played.
The grifters have a product. You’re the customer.
They call me bruce retweeted
I pulled the public orbital elements on all three satellites in the viral "SpaceX froze a NATO spy satellite so Russia could intercept it" brief and ran the numbers myself. The data shows two ordinary things happened. The explosive story welded onto them isn't supported, and in specific, checkable places it's flatly false.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED (public Space-Track elements, SGP4):
1) A Russian inspector satellite, COSMOS 2612, made a close co-orbital approach to the commercial radar satellite ICEYE-X36. It closed to tens of meters at ~0 m/s on 16-18 Oct, then withdrew. Same orbital plane (incl 97.85°), and it actively maneuvered to get there. This is a real, notable Russian proximity operation. It required ZERO SpaceX involvement, because Russia tracks and maneuvers with its own sensors.
2) A Starlink (STARLINK-35856) had a routine conjunction with ICEYE-X36, ~0.45 km on 16 Oct 23:54 UTC. Real, but ordinary. Starlink sits in a totally different plane (incl 70° vs 98°), so this was a ~15 km/s crossing that lasts seconds. Every object in LEO gets these constantly.
That's the whole factual content. Everything else is refuted by the data or isn't an orbital measurement at all.
WHAT THE DATA REFUTES:
❌ "Intercept / immobilized / kill." All three satellites are on orbit and intact right now (elements epoch 25-26 Oct). ICEYE-X36 is alive and tracked. Cosmos 2612 withdrew to ~490 km and is still drifting away. A close approach that ends in withdrawal is an inspection, not a kinetic intercept.
❌ "X36 dodged a Russian approach in June, so it had to be frozen this time." Neither half happened. Cosmos 2612 never came within 50 km of X36 until 16 Oct. In June they were thousands of km apart. And X36 shows no June maneuver: smooth drag decay, with weekly averages falling from 546.1 to 545.0 km and a largest single step of -433 m (noise). A real 0.5 km avoidance burn would be a clean -500 m step. There is none.
❌ "SpaceX pinned/froze X36 in place." X36 never maneuvers, period. Over 165 days it deviates from its natural decay curve by no more than 278 m and holds inclination to 0.022°. There was nothing to "pin." It's a passively decaying microsat. For contrast, Cosmos 2612 shows a 47.8 km altitude burn in a single day. That is what a real maneuver looks like in the data.
❌ "SpaceX inflated the danger 5x, claiming the real distance was 1.9-2.0 km." Independent public elements give ~0.45 km for the Starlink pass, consistent with the ~0.4 km figure cited, not 1.9-2.0 km. That "5x safer" claim needs SpaceX's private ephemerides that no one outside SpaceX can see, and the public data points the opposite way.
CREDIT WHERE DUE: the brief's raw archive numbers are real. The TLE update gaps and the conjunction time match my own pull. But multi-hour public TLE gaps are routine for every LEO object, and SpaceX having good space tracking is public knowledge used for collision avoidance. Neither is evidence of collusion.
WHAT ORBITAL DATA CAN'T SETTLE: "coordination" with Russia, collision-alert intent, Starlink throttling, the 23% figure, Iran, finances. Those are assertions, not measurements. The brief's "99.9% probability" is that inference restated as a number, and several of its load-bearing inputs (the June evasion, the 5x inflation, "X36 could maneuver") are false, so it's garbage in.
Orbital data can't prove a negative on intent. I can't prove no one coordinated. What I can show is that the data provides no evidence for it and contradicts the specific mechanisms claimed.
Bottom line: a real Russian satellite inspection, which was already public and known, plus a routine Starlink flyby. Two unrelated events, one narrative bolted on top.
All checks from public Space-Track two-line elements via SGP4. Happy to share the numbers.
SpaceX Blocked A U.S. And NATO Satellite to Assist a Russian Intercept After Crippling Ukraine's Air Defenses
The Math Proves the Reality that Musk doesn't want you to see.
On Oct 13-14, SpaceX restricted Starshield/Starlink during a 39-missile Russian attack, cutting Ukrainian drone intercepts by 23% and stranding U.S. personnel in Kyiv. Forty-eight hours later (Oct 15), SpaceX blocked U.S.-licensed NRO, Space Force, and NATO radar satellite ICEYE-X36 in orbit so Russia's COSMOS 2612 weapon could intercept it (99.89%-99.98% posterior)
Our Model Demonstrates that the Russian intercept of the US/NATO ICEYE X-36 satellite (contemporaneous with the throttling of Starlink) would not have been possible, and almost certainly not been attempted, without SpaceX resources. At a material opportunity cost, Russia sprinted its COSMOS satellite to intercept ICEYE X36. Based on a previous attempt in June during which X36 maneuvered to evade COSMOS, Russia knew that this would be successful only if X36 could not maneuver. On October 15, SpaceX fixed X36 in place by issuing a collision alert for a sub-kilometer approach with its Starlink 35856 when SpaceX's own data shows that the actual distance was 4.8-5.0x as great. SpaceX issued no warning to COSMOS despite the fact that its sprint was far more threatening than the stable X36 orbit. SpaceX did not maneuver its Starlink 35856 satellite to clear the supposed collision risk. How, absent coordination with SpaceX, could Russia have known that SpaceX would take actions that (a) misrepresented the danger posed by X36, and (b) resulted in the fixing of X36 thereby enabling COSMOS's successful intercept? Thus, SpaceX was directly involved in simultaneously compromising Ukraine’s defensive and offensive capabilities. The conjunction of these two events makes innocent explanations untenable.
The Pentagon Capture & Iran Round Two Trap: Pentagon CTO Emil Michael who cashed out $7M–$35M from Musk’s inner-circle SpaceX vehicles (M8/Gigafund 0.1 and M6/Valor M33 II) and KQ Partners / xAI (selling xAIfor $5M–$25M three days before taking over CDAO/OSCand 21 days before SpaceX bought xAI, while keeping M8, M6, M9, M10 & Nomadic open) and Pete Hegseth purged rival Anthropic in two hours, surrendered combat command over US drones used to attack Iran to Starlink’s "Terms of Service," and on October 2 named Musk Co-Director of Project Meridian to design the Pentagon's "Future of Warfighting" just as America enters Iran Round Twowith depleted Patriot/THAAD magazines and Russia feeding U.S. warship/aircraft locations to Tehran.
SpaceX’s actions in Ukraine raise serious questions about its alignment with US security interests and its reliability as a cornerstone of US defense. These questions are particularly troubling given the effectively irreplaceable position SpaceX has been granted by the Hegseth/Emil Michael Pentagon.
$SPCX $TSLA
Our full quantitative analysis below w/ @streetwiseprof
They call me bruce retweeted
An organized disinformation campaign about Ukraine's Starlink access has dropped on Twitter.
The richest man in the world needs bots and paid trolls for validation.
They call me bruce retweeted
Russians invaded Ukraine because they were imminently threatened by the idea of Ukraine joining an organization that would make it harder for them to invade Ukraine.
For real. But it’s not even just liberals, so many people on the left do this as well. Honestly, Russia is a huge litmus test for me. The whole situation is way more complicated than just regurgitating the establishment line of 'Russia bad' without looking at the broader context, and you cannot understand the crisis without looking at decades of NATO expansion. Like, are we actually analysing the world through a lens of global power structures, or are you just repeating what you see on the mainstream news?