The opposition doesn't get a medal and a share of the prize money, they get frozen out while the majority does whatever sick shit they can think of.
Replies
This is true but I do not believe it changes my point about the loser's campaign not being necessarily "bad." This is a point often made to baby lawyers: when you go into court, one of you is going to lose. Period. Even if both of you present the most amazing legal case ever seen in this court.
may 21, 2025, 9:51 pm • 10 0 • view
By definition, doesn't that mean your case wasn't as good as you thought? It's either that, or some mitigating factor (in Ukraine, for example, you could say the judge is corrupt.) But election fraud has widely been ruled out. So what's the mitigating factor? He bribed half the electorate?
may 21, 2025, 9:53 pm • 0 0 • view
If you thought you had a good case but it was close, w/ good arguments on either side? If the facts were on your side, but the jury got confused because it was highly technical or they just didn't like what the law said?
may 21, 2025, 9:56 pm • 2 0 • view
But in those situations, who's judging whether you had a good case? Yourself? Opposing counsel? I imagine clients are generally upset when they lose, perhaps even when they're told that their lawyer presented a good case on their behalf.
may 21, 2025, 9:59 pm • 0 0 • view
Could be all your fellow attorneys who watched your performance... Another scenario that happens is a lawyer doing a very good job with an objectively bad case (happens in criminal defense a lot), but mission anyway. This might be analogous to Kamala fighting pervasive anti-incumbency sentiment. 1/
may 21, 2025, 10:14 pm • 2 0 • view
One of the things I've read about the 2024 US election, & largely agree w/, is that too many voters voted for the year 2019 without being reality-bound enough to realize that 2019 wasn't coming back no matter WHO won the election. 2/2
may 21, 2025, 10:15 pm • 3 1 • view
I mean, the biggest mistake was not putting Trump in prison immediately
may 21, 2025, 9:58 pm • 13 1 • view
Yeah the fail state was allowing people to vote for Trump period, or to let him be a free man after 1/6 (at least). The man launched an attempted coup, then was allowed to leave office & continue his activities for the next four years & even ignore his final explicit criminal convictions.
may 21, 2025, 10:02 pm • 5 0 • view
Like that's three quarters of the ballgame right there, a fatal arrogance. Crimes are not up for electoral dispute! Treason is disqualifying!
may 21, 2025, 10:07 pm • 5 0 • view
For all their faults, Peru and South Korea at least are sufficiently functional democracies to put their criminal ex-presidents behind bars
may 21, 2025, 10:07 pm • 12 3 • view
And that's on the judiciary which for varying reasons protected Trump from facing any consequences for his criminal behavior despite numerous and repeated attempts by Democrats to bring some.
may 21, 2025, 10:39 pm • 1 0 • view
There's plenty of blame to go around there
may 21, 2025, 10:40 pm • 0 0 • view
The system was absolutely corrupted against that outcome
may 21, 2025, 9:58 pm • 9 0 • view