The main act cannot complain that the show was “stolen” when the opening act is simply BETTER! Just like the named star can’t whine and complain upstaging because another actor played their role better. Well, maybe that overstates the fact.

Whining and crying “cheater” may rationalize the steal. But, it is just as easy to rationalize the loss was due to the inability of the star to learn and deliver the lines the script demanded. Thus, upstaged!

Let me be clear: The ex-president allowed the election to be “stole” because the president was simply upstaged, muffed the lines and failed to play the character the role demanded — with truth, honesty and integrity. Period!

Next!

T’was … Bannon … Jordan … Trump … and their ilk … speaking in snaked tongues of silk: Destroyed the United States of America in their united takes to snake care of ya!

Let it be … that i see … ’tis not a part of me

Of thee i sing

The Supreme Jokort … (“joke-court”) doesn’t even realize that the law is, on its face, unconstitutional. That’s not because of Roe v. Wade. It’s because Texas taxes citizens and residents of another state, when they’ve done nothing in Texas and are without contacts with Texas. It’s called an “Interstate Commerce” violation. And, Texas has NO right to impose burdens on another state for which Texas does not pay. And, then, there’s the due process and equal protection of the law, at the tail end of the dialog. And, let’s not forget vexatious litigation. Or, how about lack of privity, assuming some sort of social contract. And, what possible standing does anyone have with regard to all of the conceptions that have not occurred? I don’t get it. Or, what standing does anyone have with regard to an impregnation with which he or she was not involved, directly or indirectly. Sorry, I don’t get it. Free to not get vaccinated, based on personal preference of one’s own body … even if it affects another. Yet, free to sue someone else based on who does get pregnant, knowingly or unknowingly, and decides to not bring a human being into existence based on their action … or even the action of another that’s opposed to their intention. I just can’t connect the dots.

Fairness doesn’t mean inequality is legal.