12 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

One little quibble. The idea that no one was above the law was our great inheritance from England, where even the monarch had to show legal justification for, say, cutting off the heads of wives.

It's a considerable irritation to me that the Republicans are almost entirely morons and do not deserve any more than the Democrats to have the least scrap of trust of the populace. People tout DeSantis, and I always like a guy who can say "fuck 'em" and mean it, but there are areas where I feel a failure of courage in him too.

It's only when a majority in this country identifies as independent/unaffiliated that we may have a chance to restore Constitutional values and common sense.

Expand full comment

Ain't gonna happen. Hoping for the impossible is why you lose. People are naturally tribal. Only antisocial folks claim to be independent. Another word for "can't decide." Independents always lose. If you want to win, pick a tribe and work to make it better than the other tribe. Most people vote and think they've done their job. That's why you lose. Politics is a participatory sport, won by the team that participates best. We don't often get good choices. Making the best choice of those available is how we win. Symbolic votes for sure losers is why we lose. The choices in November are clear. Anybody who withholds votes for even the worst pub candidate is directly supporting the seditious socialists. Priority 1 is defeating the seditious socialists, aka every dem. Priority 2 is pushing the pubs to better competence. That takes work from all of us. And time. Priority 974 is trying to make everyone think and vote just like you and me. Ain't gonna happen.

Expand full comment

Who's "we?"

Expand full comment

There was about 75 million of us in '20. Probably a lot more now.

Expand full comment

I think you're miscounting.

Expand full comment

We'll find out in about 6 months.

Expand full comment

I would note that it didn't really work like that in practice, but since it doesn't really work like that in practice here either, I'll allow the quibble!

Expand full comment

Which is why Shakespeare said what he said about lawyers.

Expand full comment

That quote is generally midunderstood. Shakespeare was not looking to kill all the lawyers because they were bad (although that is always how I use it, too...lol). The Shakespearean speaker was trying to do something untoward, and the first shot at getting it done was to get rid of the lawyers who would (legitimately) try to stop them. FWIW

Expand full comment

There's a line I love in a perhaps-bad movie called "A Murder of Crows" that goes:

"If it weren't for lawyers, old boy, we wouldn't need lawyers."

Expand full comment

I learned a great lawyer joke this week.

Of course anal sex can get you pregnant. Where do you think lawyers come from?

Expand full comment

It's my favorite line in all Shakespeare because it sounds as though it had been written yesterday. Made me understand his timelessness.

Expand full comment
Error