Jon
@m5mustdie.bsky.social
Bachelor’s degree biology
Career as Laboratory Analyst (retired)
Atheist
Interest in Creationism v Evolution debates
Bicycle daily
Controversial opinion: “Rogue One” may be a better movie than “A New Hope”.
No DMs please.
Career as Laboratory Analyst (retired)
Atheist
Interest in Creationism v Evolution debates
Bicycle daily
Controversial opinion: “Rogue One” may be a better movie than “A New Hope”.
No DMs please.
So you are advocating FOR “Gulf of America”?
November 25, 2025 at 10:36 PM
So you are advocating FOR “Gulf of America”?
Soviet Union, but yeah.
November 24, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Soviet Union, but yeah.
Wish my bathroom was that clean.
November 23, 2025 at 4:12 AM
Wish my bathroom was that clean.
Did someone say “Happy Holidays”?
November 22, 2025 at 4:17 AM
Did someone say “Happy Holidays”?
Is this is what he sounds like when he’s being honest it’s no wonder he lies all the time.
November 21, 2025 at 1:54 AM
Is this is what he sounds like when he’s being honest it’s no wonder he lies all the time.
It could be argued that if the law is not binding upon you, then you cannot commit a ‘high crime’.
November 20, 2025 at 11:39 PM
It could be argued that if the law is not binding upon you, then you cannot commit a ‘high crime’.
“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon, and now SCOTUS.
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
November 20, 2025 at 11:27 PM
“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon, and now SCOTUS.
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon, and now SCOTUS.
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
November 20, 2025 at 11:18 PM
“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon, and now SCOTUS.
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
FBI used to discover evidence, not conceal it.
November 20, 2025 at 11:07 PM
FBI used to discover evidence, not conceal it.
Finally a job he’s qualified for.
November 20, 2025 at 11:03 PM
Finally a job he’s qualified for.
“If you believe that sort of thing.”
November 20, 2025 at 11:02 PM
“If you believe that sort of thing.”
“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon and SCOTUS.
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
November 20, 2025 at 10:57 PM
“When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon and SCOTUS.
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
Does this mean that the president can’t issue an illegal order? Sounds like that’s the WH interpretation of Trump v United States.
Has Roberts tied our hands by unbinding the president to the law?
Intelligence is broad while knowledge can be niche, especially in post grads.
November 20, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Intelligence is broad while knowledge can be niche, especially in post grads.
Someday I too hope to be named insurrectionist by traitors.
November 20, 2025 at 5:51 AM
Someday I too hope to be named insurrectionist by traitors.
$10 Million for seizure of a citizen’s phone records, so how much for seizure of an actual citizen?
www.propublica.org/article/immi...
www.propublica.org/article/immi...
More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days.
The government does not track how often immigration agents grab citizens. So ProPublica did. Our tally — almost certainly incomplete — includes people who were held for days without a lawyer. And near...
www.propublica.org
November 20, 2025 at 2:03 AM
$10 Million for seizure of a citizen’s phone records, so how much for seizure of an actual citizen?
www.propublica.org/article/immi...
www.propublica.org/article/immi...
But I was under the impression that all sins were equal lest some boast?
November 20, 2025 at 12:16 AM
But I was under the impression that all sins were equal lest some boast?
Isn’t this an implied or unmarked crosswalk?
November 19, 2025 at 11:32 PM
Isn’t this an implied or unmarked crosswalk?
If this is ‘attitude’ then they should teach it in journalism school.
November 19, 2025 at 10:59 PM
If this is ‘attitude’ then they should teach it in journalism school.