Jon Bell
@jusbellum.bsky.social
I'm not important and don't really matter. My group is not important and matters as much as I do. Our words stand on their own. Citing authorities as support for a position is logic fault. Think for yourself.
Heard of Article V, US Constitution, have you?
If not, look it up.
With Article V, you can get all want, plus some.
Just need 38, minimum, State Legislatures to go along with you.
Start whenever you like.
Sit Vis Tecum
If not, look it up.
With Article V, you can get all want, plus some.
Just need 38, minimum, State Legislatures to go along with you.
Start whenever you like.
Sit Vis Tecum
November 14, 2025 at 8:35 PM
Heard of Article V, US Constitution, have you?
If not, look it up.
With Article V, you can get all want, plus some.
Just need 38, minimum, State Legislatures to go along with you.
Start whenever you like.
Sit Vis Tecum
If not, look it up.
With Article V, you can get all want, plus some.
Just need 38, minimum, State Legislatures to go along with you.
Start whenever you like.
Sit Vis Tecum
Our inquiry is: Why does even a segment of the USAian cohort put up with Ms. Kelley?
Is it because she's a carnival side show and is attended to by USAians for entertainment only.
Or,
Is it because what she says resonates with some USAians, thus has a niche to PSYOP?
Is it because she's a carnival side show and is attended to by USAians for entertainment only.
Or,
Is it because what she says resonates with some USAians, thus has a niche to PSYOP?
November 14, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Our inquiry is: Why does even a segment of the USAian cohort put up with Ms. Kelley?
Is it because she's a carnival side show and is attended to by USAians for entertainment only.
Or,
Is it because what she says resonates with some USAians, thus has a niche to PSYOP?
Is it because she's a carnival side show and is attended to by USAians for entertainment only.
Or,
Is it because what she says resonates with some USAians, thus has a niche to PSYOP?
Your 'she's a pig, fits right in' is, we say, the wrong frame of reference.
The correct direction to look is: Why does Kelly's bullshit fly in todays USA? Why do USAians put up with her bullshit?
Point: Kelly is more a function of USAians than USAians are of Kelly.
The correct direction to look is: Why does Kelly's bullshit fly in todays USA? Why do USAians put up with her bullshit?
Point: Kelly is more a function of USAians than USAians are of Kelly.
November 14, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Your 'she's a pig, fits right in' is, we say, the wrong frame of reference.
The correct direction to look is: Why does Kelly's bullshit fly in todays USA? Why do USAians put up with her bullshit?
Point: Kelly is more a function of USAians than USAians are of Kelly.
The correct direction to look is: Why does Kelly's bullshit fly in todays USA? Why do USAians put up with her bullshit?
Point: Kelly is more a function of USAians than USAians are of Kelly.
Assume, arguendo, 1) no one is distracted, 2) Trump's efforts re the 'Epstein matter' is indeed misdirecting bullshit, 3) the whole of the 'Epstein matter' is made public, and 4) none of 'Epstein matter' made public is ambiguous, what do you a) think would and/or b) want to come of it?
November 14, 2025 at 4:48 PM
Assume, arguendo, 1) no one is distracted, 2) Trump's efforts re the 'Epstein matter' is indeed misdirecting bullshit, 3) the whole of the 'Epstein matter' is made public, and 4) none of 'Epstein matter' made public is ambiguous, what do you a) think would and/or b) want to come of it?
2/2
... interest filters, that USA's democracy if near faux and the fact that a 'majority of Americans' are unhappy about something governance-wise tends to count for shit.
... interest filters, that USA's democracy if near faux and the fact that a 'majority of Americans' are unhappy about something governance-wise tends to count for shit.
November 13, 2025 at 5:38 PM
2/2
... interest filters, that USA's democracy if near faux and the fact that a 'majority of Americans' are unhappy about something governance-wise tends to count for shit.
... interest filters, that USA's democracy if near faux and the fact that a 'majority of Americans' are unhappy about something governance-wise tends to count for shit.
Don't let Trump resign. At least not a normal/traditional resignation.
You and yours need to/should remove Trump from office.
Reason: A normal/traditional resignation will allow Trump to retain all benefits of office. If removed from office, his benefits can be adjusted.
You and yours need to/should remove Trump from office.
Reason: A normal/traditional resignation will allow Trump to retain all benefits of office. If removed from office, his benefits can be adjusted.
November 13, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Don't let Trump resign. At least not a normal/traditional resignation.
You and yours need to/should remove Trump from office.
Reason: A normal/traditional resignation will allow Trump to retain all benefits of office. If removed from office, his benefits can be adjusted.
You and yours need to/should remove Trump from office.
Reason: A normal/traditional resignation will allow Trump to retain all benefits of office. If removed from office, his benefits can be adjusted.
We say doesn't matter for about 40% of USAians. (Though they might say it does matter for Asch reasons.)
For a different 40%, give or take, it does matter.
The issue isn't one of 'the American people', but for the USAians it does matter, do they have the means/methods to do something about it?
For a different 40%, give or take, it does matter.
The issue isn't one of 'the American people', but for the USAians it does matter, do they have the means/methods to do something about it?
November 13, 2025 at 4:20 PM
We say doesn't matter for about 40% of USAians. (Though they might say it does matter for Asch reasons.)
For a different 40%, give or take, it does matter.
The issue isn't one of 'the American people', but for the USAians it does matter, do they have the means/methods to do something about it?
For a different 40%, give or take, it does matter.
The issue isn't one of 'the American people', but for the USAians it does matter, do they have the means/methods to do something about it?
Q1: Where's the money paid directly to the people going to come from?
Q2: Is the money paid directly to the people going to equal the ACA subsidies?
Q3: Why not price control healthcare/healthcare insurance and not pay money directly to the people?
Q2: Is the money paid directly to the people going to equal the ACA subsidies?
Q3: Why not price control healthcare/healthcare insurance and not pay money directly to the people?
November 13, 2025 at 3:54 AM
Q1: Where's the money paid directly to the people going to come from?
Q2: Is the money paid directly to the people going to equal the ACA subsidies?
Q3: Why not price control healthcare/healthcare insurance and not pay money directly to the people?
Q2: Is the money paid directly to the people going to equal the ACA subsidies?
Q3: Why not price control healthcare/healthcare insurance and not pay money directly to the people?
Here's something you should sit with for awhile:
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and like it.
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and don't care.
Each of those 'many USAians' combine to equal/exceed those that don't like or do care.
Shouldn't be, but is.
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and like it.
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and don't care.
Each of those 'many USAians' combine to equal/exceed those that don't like or do care.
Shouldn't be, but is.
November 13, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Here's something you should sit with for awhile:
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and like it.
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and don't care.
Each of those 'many USAians' combine to equal/exceed those that don't like or do care.
Shouldn't be, but is.
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and like it.
Many USAians know pretty much exactly what Trump is, and don't care.
Each of those 'many USAians' combine to equal/exceed those that don't like or do care.
Shouldn't be, but is.
Not weird at all.
To be expected.
Trump's word is for shit.
Pay zero attention to what Trump says.
Watch what Trump does.
NB: Trump's future action tend to stay on track with his past.
To be expected.
Trump's word is for shit.
Pay zero attention to what Trump says.
Watch what Trump does.
NB: Trump's future action tend to stay on track with his past.
November 13, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Not weird at all.
To be expected.
Trump's word is for shit.
Pay zero attention to what Trump says.
Watch what Trump does.
NB: Trump's future action tend to stay on track with his past.
To be expected.
Trump's word is for shit.
Pay zero attention to what Trump says.
Watch what Trump does.
NB: Trump's future action tend to stay on track with his past.
We're not wanting to be correct on this one.
But, we're jaded, cynical, and are of the view USAians have a short attention span.
But, we're jaded, cynical, and are of the view USAians have a short attention span.
November 13, 2025 at 12:55 AM
We're not wanting to be correct on this one.
But, we're jaded, cynical, and are of the view USAians have a short attention span.
But, we're jaded, cynical, and are of the view USAians have a short attention span.
As long as USA's milpers know the DOJ memo isn't the last word, all is well.
As long as USAians, including, not limited to, USA's milpers know even USA's SCOTUS isn't the last word, all is well.
As long as USAians, including, not limited to, USA's milpers know even USA's SCOTUS isn't the last word, all is well.
November 13, 2025 at 12:12 AM
As long as USA's milpers know the DOJ memo isn't the last word, all is well.
As long as USAians, including, not limited to, USA's milpers know even USA's SCOTUS isn't the last word, all is well.
As long as USAians, including, not limited to, USA's milpers know even USA's SCOTUS isn't the last word, all is well.
Much better comment than 'he should resign'.
We say if either a) or b) are close to being accurate, he should be disbarred, in addition to being fired.
We say if either a) or b) are close to being accurate, he should be disbarred, in addition to being fired.
November 12, 2025 at 9:35 PM
Much better comment than 'he should resign'.
We say if either a) or b) are close to being accurate, he should be disbarred, in addition to being fired.
We say if either a) or b) are close to being accurate, he should be disbarred, in addition to being fired.
'Are surely'!?!?
Nah.
There are other, more rational and equally plausible, reasons.
Nah.
There are other, more rational and equally plausible, reasons.
November 12, 2025 at 8:37 PM
'Are surely'!?!?
Nah.
There are other, more rational and equally plausible, reasons.
Nah.
There are other, more rational and equally plausible, reasons.
Trump will pass.
The system, standards, etc. that Trump creates may not.
I'd be malpractice for the heavy hitters to not attend.
The system, standards, etc. that Trump creates may not.
I'd be malpractice for the heavy hitters to not attend.
November 12, 2025 at 8:26 PM
Trump will pass.
The system, standards, etc. that Trump creates may not.
I'd be malpractice for the heavy hitters to not attend.
The system, standards, etc. that Trump creates may not.
I'd be malpractice for the heavy hitters to not attend.
Blanche resigning would accomplish what exactly?
November 12, 2025 at 8:24 PM
Blanche resigning would accomplish what exactly?
A 'no denial' response is meaningful how?
Explain.
Do you see a 'no denial' response as equaling an 'I admit' response?
If so, why?
Explain.
Do you see a 'no denial' response as equaling an 'I admit' response?
If so, why?
November 12, 2025 at 7:11 PM
A 'no denial' response is meaningful how?
Explain.
Do you see a 'no denial' response as equaling an 'I admit' response?
If so, why?
Explain.
Do you see a 'no denial' response as equaling an 'I admit' response?
If so, why?
You use the notion 'guilty' way too loosely, and pejoratively.
One might say you're a yellow-journalist, intent on inciting the wee-minded, by your use of 'guilty'.
'Guilty' requires an adjudication, a finding of fact, application of law, etc.
Without the adjudication, etc., there is no 'guilty'.
One might say you're a yellow-journalist, intent on inciting the wee-minded, by your use of 'guilty'.
'Guilty' requires an adjudication, a finding of fact, application of law, etc.
Without the adjudication, etc., there is no 'guilty'.
November 12, 2025 at 6:46 PM
You use the notion 'guilty' way too loosely, and pejoratively.
One might say you're a yellow-journalist, intent on inciting the wee-minded, by your use of 'guilty'.
'Guilty' requires an adjudication, a finding of fact, application of law, etc.
Without the adjudication, etc., there is no 'guilty'.
One might say you're a yellow-journalist, intent on inciting the wee-minded, by your use of 'guilty'.
'Guilty' requires an adjudication, a finding of fact, application of law, etc.
Without the adjudication, etc., there is no 'guilty'.
Science can't be disagreed with.
This is because science is a process of, inter alia, examination.
The findings of science can be disagreed with, and criticized, and argued against.
But, to do so (properly) the disagreements, criticisms, and arguments against must, themselves, be science-based.
This is because science is a process of, inter alia, examination.
The findings of science can be disagreed with, and criticized, and argued against.
But, to do so (properly) the disagreements, criticisms, and arguments against must, themselves, be science-based.
November 12, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Science can't be disagreed with.
This is because science is a process of, inter alia, examination.
The findings of science can be disagreed with, and criticized, and argued against.
But, to do so (properly) the disagreements, criticisms, and arguments against must, themselves, be science-based.
This is because science is a process of, inter alia, examination.
The findings of science can be disagreed with, and criticized, and argued against.
But, to do so (properly) the disagreements, criticisms, and arguments against must, themselves, be science-based.