I don't think that's what would happen. If democrats win, and their seats become safer, they are pulled left by primary challenges. We observed this with Republicans over the last 3 decades. They never won by pretending to be moderate with the rest of the party deciding to go even more moderate; they learned they could go further right once they were established.

What message are you trying to send, though? The only information they get from your non-vote is that the other guy wins, and he is full-on anti-trans. The message, from their vantage point, is "be more anti-trans because that is what wins."

Ok, vote for who, then?

GOG is always the go-to. Steam only if you can't wait to play it or its multi-player.

Did... you read the comment? They made a simple statement. They didn't go beyond that and made no other claims. You're the one assuming, here.

It's one of those things that can absolutely be done with care, effort, and money. But we lack a government that will put any of those toward the project. And the private sector will actively undermine it to scrape a few more pennies off the top.

No wonder no one can find the clitoris.

First of all, didn't praise him. Seems like you missed the multiple times in my response I pointed out I wasn't making comment on the correctness of his decision. Whether you just missed it or are deliberately ignoring it for the sake of getting to be a dick online, I can't tell.

Second, I dont know what he did or didn't say (I didn't follow the case, remember?), that's his fault for saying anything about his decision. In fact, that's what my entire post hinged on; the concept that a juror does not and should not be forced to divulge their reasoning. The ability for a juror to disagree with the group is what makes a jury work at all.

Whether or not he committed perjery in this instance is not relevant to my post, which was more a comment on how a juror must be free to disagree with the jury otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

Might be a reason, but that doesn't mean you have to divulge it. That's the whole reason a jury works; each juror can come to their own conclusion. Tautologically that requires them to be able to decide differently than the rest of the group.

I don't know any particulars about this specific case because I did not follow it. But that being said, he doesn't have to justify his vote in my opinion. There's a reason we have a jury of multiple people. The entire system was designed specifically for this possibility to arise to put a check on the possibility of mob mentality.

I don't know if he made the right call. I'm just glad that he has the right to make the call of his conscious in this system.

art of the something or other

lol that ain't how that works