"All that" being a poorly worded law that requires years of additional legislation to bring it to the point we could have started with if we applied the lessons learned to begin with.

-----

Yeah, that's my mistake: when I say 'all that' I mean each and every bit of legislation ought to start from scratch, 'all that' being the process from start. That is: the cake of law ought to be made from scratch, not bought, ready-made, at the grocery.

So: if law makers had to seriously consider the need of a law (instead of just assuming that need, or being told there's a need), and if law makers had to start from the beginning on every bit of law (instead of assuming precedents [call it zero-based law making]), there would probably be fewer laws passed and those that were passed would probably address legit needs instead of momentary/cultural/special interest whims.

Those are completely orthogonal. Sure, there are laws that shouldn't exist. But once it's been decided that the law should exist, I don't see how it helps things to deliberately leave massive loopholes that centuries of experience have shown us.

Because even if the legislators don't, the bad actors will. All they have to do is look at all the boilerplate that was left off of the new law, and do that. They don't even have to make up new ways around the law.
That being said, if "the grocery" is a special interest think tank that submits ready-made laws with carefully designed loopholes, rather than boilerplate that has naturally grown from years of legislative clerks drafting law (legislators themselves seldom have much to do with the actual drafting), then I agree.

Seems to me, within the American framework, the only boilerplate we need concern ourselves with is the Constitution (itself a concise codification and distillation of 'centuries of experience'). Start there, that's the table (the only one you can use), or mebbe the basic recipe (from which you cannot deviate)...go collect your fixings...make that cake from scratch.

#

"orthogonal"

Nice word...lots of meanings.

If laws were written like the Constitution, then every case would need to be decided by the Supreme Court.

So what?

That's what the courts (local all the way up to the highest) are for: to adjudicate.

Look how much they want to talk about anything other than the reality that their party cheated...

Does that surprise you?

I'm not surprised at all democrat powers -- the folks most strident about the goodness of 'democracy' -- have no faith in the democratic process (no faith in 'the people'), and I'm not surprised -- when those powers are caught monkeyin' around -- they don't wanna talk about it.

Me?!?!?!?!?!

Hell no. They've got nothing and they know it. She is literally indefensible.

So some administrators in the DNC decided to support Hilary. That proves to wacko extremists that the entire DNC and Hilary are evil. "Fuck the facts and details. Only my emotions and wacko extremist rhetoric prove it must be true."

Moderates among us can watch wackos post more cheapshot attacks. Defined is a difference between an adult (who first learns facts) from wackos who are experts because their political emotions (and Cruz, Rush, and Ann Coulter say so) prove it is true.

Let the cheapshot attacks resume. Since that is what these recent posts are about. Emotions blame all as evil because a few somebodies cast support towards their preferred Democrat. Amazing how wackos can disparage all because a few had an opinion.

Wackos are so easily manipulated as to even deny promoted a of massacre of almost 5000 American soldiers when reality was clearly distorted and is know well known to have been 'sexed up'.

Who will be so wacko as to take the bait?

Finally the realization that we have all known for years. Knowing and identifying your problem is the first step. Good for you.


Now fuck off and go back to pretending I don't exist. Its better for EVERYONE.

And one more just for fun ...

If she wasn't running against Trump, those videos might have a point.

Except claiming that being a defense attorney is a bad thing. That's silly.

And the lesbian stuff was pretty unpleasant.

Trump is an ass. He's a problem as well.
I cannot fathom how anyone can really support either one of them on their merit.
I can understand the "We'll he/she is better than her/him." Neither of them are good candidates.