@clintmajors.bsky.social
Aren't you though?
December 9, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Aren't you though?
Sweetheart, you project insults because you cannot defend your claims. You barged into this debate that clearly were not ready for and folded the moment facts showed up. The only shitstorm is you hurling labels hoping to hide the loss. Block me if you must. It what you do when you lose anyways lol.
December 9, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Sweetheart, you project insults because you cannot defend your claims. You barged into this debate that clearly were not ready for and folded the moment facts showed up. The only shitstorm is you hurling labels hoping to hide the loss. Block me if you must. It what you do when you lose anyways lol.
You keep shouting law without citing any. Interdiction of drug vessels requires no declaration of war and every statute proves it. You invent standards that do not exist because you cannot defend your claim. Your outrage is not evidence and your confidence is not law.
December 9, 2025 at 4:50 PM
You keep shouting law without citing any. Interdiction of drug vessels requires no declaration of war and every statute proves it. You invent standards that do not exist because you cannot defend your claim. Your outrage is not evidence and your confidence is not law.
Stokes is peddling wishful thinking as law. No court has ever said a sitting president can be arrested, and DOJ policy bars it to protect constitutional function. Starr’s opinion isn’t binding. The Constitution sets impeachment first, prosecution after. His take is civics fanfic.
December 9, 2025 at 1:23 AM
Stokes is peddling wishful thinking as law. No court has ever said a sitting president can be arrested, and DOJ policy bars it to protect constitutional function. Starr’s opinion isn’t binding. The Constitution sets impeachment first, prosecution after. His take is civics fanfic.
You call our institutions anti democratic, then demand they be rebuilt to your taste. That is the script every dictator uses. The Court, Presidency and Senate are checks on tyranny. Your take is not pro democracy, it is a tantrum dressed as analysis.
December 9, 2025 at 1:18 AM
You call our institutions anti democratic, then demand they be rebuilt to your taste. That is the script every dictator uses. The Court, Presidency and Senate are checks on tyranny. Your take is not pro democracy, it is a tantrum dressed as analysis.
You keep claiming the US lacks authority but cannot cite a single clause from UNCLOS or MDLEA to back it. Interdiction of drug vessels does not require a declaration of war and you know it. Saying ‘I grasp it’ is not proof. It is you dodging facts again.
December 9, 2025 at 1:15 AM
You keep claiming the US lacks authority but cannot cite a single clause from UNCLOS or MDLEA to back it. Interdiction of drug vessels does not require a declaration of war and you know it. Saying ‘I grasp it’ is not proof. It is you dodging facts again.
Cute ‘bidnezzzz’ joke but trafficking in international waters is our business by law. Interdiction is legal and routine. Calling it murder shows you do not grasp jurisdiction or ROE. Repeating Suriname just spotlights how empty your argument is.
December 8, 2025 at 4:20 PM
Cute ‘bidnezzzz’ joke but trafficking in international waters is our business by law. Interdiction is legal and routine. Calling it murder shows you do not grasp jurisdiction or ROE. Repeating Suriname just spotlights how empty your argument is.
Calling me a fearful little man will not hide that you have no facts. You were asked to prove a narcotics vessel is not a threat and you still cannot. Shouting Suriname is not law. It is you admitting you lost and hoping insults cover it.
December 8, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Calling me a fearful little man will not hide that you have no facts. You were asked to prove a narcotics vessel is not a threat and you still cannot. Shouting Suriname is not law. It is you admitting you lost and hoping insults cover it.
One stray word is not a rebuttal, it is the last gasp of someone who got flattened by facts. You still cannot defend your claim, so you pretend gibberish is insight. The heart emoji is the cherry on top of your intellectual collapse.
December 7, 2025 at 10:21 PM
One stray word is not a rebuttal, it is the last gasp of someone who got flattened by facts. You still cannot defend your claim, so you pretend gibberish is insight. The heart emoji is the cherry on top of your intellectual collapse.
Lol This is classic “I lost the argument so here's some random nouns to look smart.”
It’s pure cope dressed up as expertise.
It’s pure cope dressed up as expertise.
December 7, 2025 at 2:56 AM
Lol This is classic “I lost the argument so here's some random nouns to look smart.”
It’s pure cope dressed up as expertise.
It’s pure cope dressed up as expertise.
You misunderstood the slogan. “No taxation without representation” meant people who were taxed demanded a voice in government. It never meant citizens lose representation if taxes are reduced. Representation comes from citizenship, not your tax bill.
December 6, 2025 at 5:21 PM
You misunderstood the slogan. “No taxation without representation” meant people who were taxed demanded a voice in government. It never meant citizens lose representation if taxes are reduced. Representation comes from citizenship, not your tax bill.
Equating them with the U.S. armed forces is an insult to the oath, the uniform, and basic logic. And no, labeling violent actors as domestic terrorists doesn’t criminalize “defending democracy.” It criminalizes violence.
December 6, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Equating them with the U.S. armed forces is an insult to the oath, the uniform, and basic logic. And no, labeling violent actors as domestic terrorists doesn’t criminalize “defending democracy.” It criminalizes violence.
Nothing was moved. You claimed the boat was no threat. That is false. Interdiction targets traffickers because their product kills and fuels violence. Calling that murder is your emotional spin. Other countries citing your ignorance is not my problem. If I was you I'd be done to lol.
December 4, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Nothing was moved. You claimed the boat was no threat. That is false. Interdiction targets traffickers because their product kills and fuels violence. Calling that murder is your emotional spin. Other countries citing your ignorance is not my problem. If I was you I'd be done to lol.
You whining about drug types is you dodging again. Cocaine still kills thousands and bankrolls violence, so a smuggling boat is a threat whether you grasp it or not. Calling facts emotional just exposes that you have zero understanding of what you speak.
December 4, 2025 at 2:11 AM
You whining about drug types is you dodging again. Cocaine still kills thousands and bankrolls violence, so a smuggling boat is a threat whether you grasp it or not. Calling facts emotional just exposes that you have zero understanding of what you speak.
Your argument collapses instantly. Drugs kill more Americans than most disasters combined, so a smuggling boat is absolutely a lethal threat. Interdiction happens at sea because we don’t wait for poison to hit a port. If you think it’s harmless until it docks, you’re clueless.
December 4, 2025 at 1:33 AM
Your argument collapses instantly. Drugs kill more Americans than most disasters combined, so a smuggling boat is absolutely a lethal threat. Interdiction happens at sea because we don’t wait for poison to hit a port. If you think it’s harmless until it docks, you’re clueless.
Lol so I use your logic against you and you're upset about it. Help me out are you trying to be sarcastic,witty, or dumb with that last statement. If you seriously think drugs aren't a lethal threat you've got some problems.
December 4, 2025 at 12:42 AM
Lol so I use your logic against you and you're upset about it. Help me out are you trying to be sarcastic,witty, or dumb with that last statement. If you seriously think drugs aren't a lethal threat you've got some problems.
Just like most your claim lacking proof Just fishermen’ isn’t evidence. It’s a family claim with zero verification. NYT already debunked the idea the U.S. hit random boats without ID. Intel drove the strike. Criminals’ families always say they were innocent.Claims aren’t facts, and this one has none
December 3, 2025 at 1:21 AM
Just like most your claim lacking proof Just fishermen’ isn’t evidence. It’s a family claim with zero verification. NYT already debunked the idea the U.S. hit random boats without ID. Intel drove the strike. Criminals’ families always say they were innocent.Claims aren’t facts, and this one has none
You may be confused and want to read what I responded to which prompted your response.
December 2, 2025 at 9:07 PM
You may be confused and want to read what I responded to which prompted your response.
Lol well now that even the New York Times is reporting the claim as false, and given your deep devotion to treating every rumor as fact, do you feel like budging? Or are you sticking with the fantasy because it hurt too much to admit you jumped the gun?
December 2, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Lol well now that even the New York Times is reporting the claim as false, and given your deep devotion to treating every rumor as fact, do you feel like budging? Or are you sticking with the fantasy because it hurt too much to admit you jumped the gun?
Everything on the surface suggests nothing. A lack of verified info from the military is not proof of illegality. Let’s assume you are right and they did something illegal. Then yes, they should be punished. What I will not do is assume guilt based on "unverified sources".
December 2, 2025 at 1:17 PM
Everything on the surface suggests nothing. A lack of verified info from the military is not proof of illegality. Let’s assume you are right and they did something illegal. Then yes, they should be punished. What I will not do is assume guilt based on "unverified sources".
Was an asinine take..... If you took your oath to heart what would the point of those PSA's? Furthermore there isnt a need for something that by there own admission hasn't happened. Grow up.
December 1, 2025 at 4:10 AM
Was an asinine take..... If you took your oath to heart what would the point of those PSA's? Furthermore there isnt a need for something that by there own admission hasn't happened. Grow up.
What does that have to do with this? And just to be clear when you support someone you don't have to like all of there decisions. It's a wild pivot that does little to help your already weak claim lol.
December 1, 2025 at 3:48 AM
What does that have to do with this? And just to be clear when you support someone you don't have to like all of there decisions. It's a wild pivot that does little to help your already weak claim lol.
“Has teeth” is cute, but Congress can “look into” anything. An investigation isn’t proof, it’s politics. There is still zero verified evidence of wrongdoing. You keep mistaking headlines and wishcasting for facts. Buckle up for the disappointment when nothing you claimed materializes.
December 1, 2025 at 2:40 AM
“Has teeth” is cute, but Congress can “look into” anything. An investigation isn’t proof, it’s politics. There is still zero verified evidence of wrongdoing. You keep mistaking headlines and wishcasting for facts. Buckle up for the disappointment when nothing you claimed materializes.
The globe “discussing” something is not proof, it is gossip at scale. Facts are verified, not voted on. You keep mistaking chatter for evidence because you have none. Come back when you can offer something other than noise and bumper-sticker hysteria.
December 1, 2025 at 2:38 AM
The globe “discussing” something is not proof, it is gossip at scale. Facts are verified, not voted on. You keep mistaking chatter for evidence because you have none. Come back when you can offer something other than noise and bumper-sticker hysteria.