My analysis is based on the fact that 15 is not barely legal, it is *illegal, and members of the bar should not be running around saying child rape is legal, regardless of whether it's intended to be "legal advice." Which is probably why the phrase "legal advice" never appeared in my post.

can't believe appointing a completely random person with no experience doing anything to the board of supervisors because she walked up to you on the street and said "hey I need a gig, I'll do it" didn't work out

my radical idea for governing one of America's great cities is you should take the fucking job seriously

every day brings a new one!

pundit brain at its worst

an app that talks to rubes while pretending to be god, what could possibly go wrong?

the good fortune is mutual

Here The Washington Post Editorial Board treats Donald Trump ordering DOJ investigations of his political adversaries as a *political* misstep, never once so much as hinting that it is an *abuse of power*

I don't think you know what a "straw man" is. I said she should be disbarred for falsely telling a public audience it is legal for adults to rape 15 year olds. You said she should be allowed to remain a member of the bar despite that. You're saying it again now.

great job bezos bsky.app/profile/did:...

Hundreds of people have interacted with that thread and I'm pretty sure you're the first person who has taken the "you should be able to practice law while falsely telling people child rape is legal" stance so it's possible you aren't the best judge of what "pretty much anyone" other than you thinks

your firm stance in favor of people being allowed to practice law while falsely telling the public that child rape is legal is noted.

This is a 19-paragraph article to which 7 journalists contributed; it contains not a single hint that there is any impropriety in the President of the United States directing the Justice Department to investigate his political adversaries.

This is a 19-paragraph article to which 7 journalists contributed; it contains not a single hint that there is any impropriety in the President of the United States directing the Justice Department to investigate his political adversaries.

anybody who is guilty should be held accountable for their actions but if you interpret this move as a sincere effort to find guilty parties instead of a transparently desperate effort to *evade* accountability I recommend frequently checking your wallet. You are what's commonly known as a "mark."

you can write a lot of valid criticism of Democrats right now (or any other time!) but an honest person cannot write a whole thing about voters rejecting hapless Democrats one week after Democrats won everywhere (including two statewide races in Georgia) without acknowledging those election results