iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

USA has always been, as in has never not been, the land of 'double standards'. Though, on occasion, three or more standards are afoot.

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Trump doesn't obey, comply with, or, even, pay attention to orders. Trump issues orders. USAians should work on that.

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

'And' instead of 'But' or no 'But' at all would be a better presentation. Cheers,

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 11/10/2026

This is more likely the outcome ->

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 11/10/2026

The question is: When was USA great? Was USA great prior to the 1970s, when USA studied the effects of untreated Syphilis on Black-Americans and engaged in non-consensual sterilization of Native American females? Or, was USA great after? If powerful equals great, establish.

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 11/10/2026

When was USA ever great? Sincere inquiry.

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

Well, it must be acknowledged a lot of what Nazi Germany did, came from USA. Germans being Germans just took what others were doing and made it 'better, faster, cheaper'.

020

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

Who gives a shit which side Trump is on. Trump is a self-serving doofus dirtbag who thinks his shit doesn't stink. The only thing that matters re this matter is which side USA is one. NB: Trump ain't USA and USA ain't Trump.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

The guy/gal asking the 'do you want ...' question should slapped upside the head with a 2X4 for letting Trump not answer the 'do you want ...' question.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

You should take that issue up with Mr. Walsh. He's the one tilting at a windmill and looking for others to join him.

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

As long as the tough questions are 1) not gotcha questions and 2) no quarter is given non-answers, all is well.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

There's no war in Iran. Something is going on. War it's not. That said, 'focused on ending' implies a mission. SecDef doesn't set macro-missions. The people of USA do that, by and through their government. Q1: Have the people of USA set the mission. Q2: Is their government listening?

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Political parties is the problem. Not the whole problem. Just a large portion of the problem. A new political party will just produce an 'Animal Farm' outcome.

140

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

If your purpose/objective is one of, say, whistle blower, civil disobedience, investigative reporting, etc. AND you are sincere, know you're entering a metaphorical mine field, where the risks of misstep are real. See 18 US Code, Ch. 63, Pt. I. Vis Tecum Sit

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

End the war for reasons material and substantive. 'Keeping 'America's truckers' on the road' is 'tail wag the dog. To move 'keeping 'America's truckers' on the road' from 'tail wag the dog' to material and substantive, all of USA's butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers must be included.

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

'Spiritual fitness, spiritual readiness, and spiritual resilience' is gonna get a lot of folks killed. Guaranfuckingteed.

040

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

2/2 ... with no meaningful/useful information. If you can return to the topic/subject, do so. Otherwise, have a great day. (Your argumentum ad hominems are getting worse with each iteration.)

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

1/2 The topic/subject here is the fact that comments similar to OP's 'two Obama appointees and one Trump 1.0 appointee', while factually accurate, 1) only act to undermine the integrity of the judiciary by imputing, by innuendo, a partisan bias and 2) provide OP's readers ...

200

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

D level argumentum ad hominem effort here.

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

What could Congressional DEMers do with the abuses they were to select? Impeach? Don't hold your breath. Legislate a new Art. II? Dream on. Amend Art. II to be 'Trump-proof'. Congress can't. So, if Congressional DEMers were to pick some abuses, what could they do? Sincere inquiry.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Funny thing about defamation-/disparagement-/character-assassination by innuendo, relevance to the subject matter re which it occurs isn't required or necessary. If the intended defamation, disparagement, and/or character assassination occurs, mission accomplished.

011

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

C- re your argumentum ad hominem here. You should really strive to stay on topic.

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Unless you can do really good, witty, amusing, and/or entertaining argumentum ad hominem, suggest you stay on topic. And, you effort here suggests you really should stay on topic.

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Now that you know, what are you going to do?

001

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

As commitments go, the one at issue seems as illusory as illusory can get. The only hope, to the extent there is any hope at all re the matter, is that not all of humanity will be killed off, where there'll be enough of a gene pool left to start again. Hopefully with a 'no more oligarchs' gene.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Case study re the litigator's maxim: Best know the answers to the questions you ask BEFORE you ask the questions. Only bad will come if you do ask without knowing the answer. Kinda like walking through a minefield when not knowing where the mines are.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Seems an opportunity for Congress and/or the people of USA to step into the void created by Trump and do some 'adult in the room' governance. Not to be cynical, but don't your breath re Congress doing shit. Pretty much same re the people of USA, as they are being distracted by gas prices and all.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

There are no material/substantive facts in defamation by innuendo.

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

If the judiciary has no integrity, then expending energy, effort, resources, etc. to undermine the judiciary is a rather nonsensical waste/no-ROI expending of energy, effort, resources, etc. - yes? So, again, at the risk of repetition: Why bother?

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Your comment establishes the undermining integrity point, by interconnecting the Judge/Justice with the nominating individual, thus, by innuendo, suggesting Judges/Justices are more petty partisan creatures than students of law.

200

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

How did the laissez-faire, aka 'self-regulation', approach work out for what became to be known a Super Fund sites?

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Did anyone ask Trump, 'With whom will data centers be very popular?' We say the answer to that question would be rather telling.

030

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

You say 'absolute dumbest, dumbest, dumbest'. We say, and with more sincerity than you can imagine:

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Your 'two Obama appointees and one Trump 1.0 appointee' parenthetical only acts to undermine the integrity of the judiciary, i.e., doesn't provide your readers with any meaningful/useful information they can use in a productive manner. So, why do you do it?

220

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

If America is the product, the product is, to employ Tort Law attorney jargon, a defective product. Doesn't mean there are not a lot of potential buyers envisioning some profit to be made by/through the upcoming fire sales by the immobile. There are. Also, C Corps are extremely mobile.

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

'Because of USAians ...' would be a more accurate and honest statement. Trump is where he is only because of USAians. Each day is a day USAians could have used their Constitution to remove Trump from office. Ergo, the causality re USA being on the fast-track to shitsville is USAians, not Trump.

021

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

3/3 ... long-established constitutional doctrine. Regards,

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

2/3 ... ultimately, lead to criminal prosecution, sanction, etc. 'Wealth', i.e., accumulated income, revenue, etc., has, after all, already been taxed, thus lawfully owned. Ergo, any law imposing tax on lawfully, post-tax, property would be an ex post facto law, thus running afoul of a ...

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

@smerconish.bsky.social 1/3 Greetings, Caught a couple bits of your show re 'tax the rich'. Would appreciate you addressing the ex post facto factor of 'tax the rich' programs. Should be unconstitutional by reason of Art. I, Secs. 9 and 10, US Const. given Tax Code violations can, ...

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Your allegorical sea lion is looking for defense, justification, etc. re the 'I could do without sea lions' position. We don't look for or expect a defense, justification, etc. re your position re Mr. Smith. We simply look for your rational, where we have no interest re judging your rational.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Your 'the results could shape ...' suggests, implies, perhaps even declares SCOTUS is the last word re whatever SCOTUS addresses. Fact is, SCOTUS isn't the last word on anything. SCOTUS decisions are advisory. Each and every SCOTUS decision can be set aside. Not easy, but doable.

010

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Why? Is it because you see Mr. Smith an honest broker re insight re the matters he speaks? If so, why? Or, is it because that which Mr. Smith speaks comports with your confirmation biases? If so, will not Mr. Smith be little more than noise re those holding incompatible confirmation biases?

101

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Well prior, we say, to January 2025. We say the undermining of institutions began 1964 when Congress issued its AUMF re the Vietnam conflict. And, Congress has continued its delegating of Art. I authorities to Art. II since. Smith's 'since January 2025' is TDS after the horses have left the barn.

030

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

2/2 USAians would have more success with an Art. V petition that holds: 'Resolved; Trump is, forthwith, not POTUS.' Where the odds of such an Art. V petition is slim to fucking zero. Bottom-line: USAians suck at Civics. This too ->

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

1/2 Impeachment is a process. Impeachment, as a process, is meaningful only if substantive, material, honest, and, above all, apolitical. USA is incapable of such a process meeting those four criteria. So, why bother? Why bother even talking about it?

100

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Do you have a solution to propose? Or, are you just griping?

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Arguably valid because the gain/detriment calculus is complex. And, not all are agreed to what are/are not the gains/detriments.

000

Jon Bell @jusbellum.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

While your argument is arguably valid, way off topic re the windmill Reich tilts at. That said, USA, especially SCOTUS, is über-pro-business/commerce, even if detrimental to society. See, inter alia, CERCLA as example how far USA will bend over backwards to protect business at cost to public.

100