I hope this isn't meant as an insult. I'm not far-left (or left at all, for that matter) and simply made the post because I found Mr. Trump's rhetoric interesting. I'm speaking primarily from an observational standpoint here.
The current situation (that is, a presidential candidate and ex-POTUS facing criminal charges) is unprecedented in our nation's history and as such I'm following the case with great interest. Laws and regulations are being challenged and interpreted in different ways for the first time, and I find it interesting to observe how said interpretations come to be.
Trump's words and actions in court are being followed by many, and it's expected that news outlets such as CNN would follow the case closely in order to negatively frame Trump (given CNN's consistent left-lean bias).
I didn't know of any such speech until today. After researching it, the only relevant information I could find was from a campaign speech just before the 1992 primary where Clinton gave a "fight like hell" speech.
Source.
Right away, the biggest differences I could think of were
a. This was before social media, and Hillary was not known for the same levels of lashing out and anger as Trump, and
b. Notably, this speech was
before the actual election, implying that Clinton was talking about her own or her team's efforts to support/concentrate efforts for a Presidential bid--
not overturning the results after the fact. Trump's "fight like hell" has largely been interpreted to have implied a forceful overturning of the election results--after all, it directly influenced the January 6th riot.
Still, you alluded to a speech Clinton gave after she lost (presumably in 2016). I didn't find anything like that, but if you know of such a speech and could provide a link/source of some sort, I'd like to check that out as well. If what you say is true then it's worth looking into.
This is a puzzling comment because Trump's case is
a. Not a lawsuit,
b. Not at all frivolous, and
c. Otherwise irrelevant to Nintendo's trigger-happy legal strategies.
This case is a criminal trial brought by the Manhattan D.A. and has sufficient legal reasoning and evidence to proceed. The link between the hush money payment and an attempt to undermine the U.S. election is admittedly somewhat far-fetched, but it's difficult to say to what degree until all evidence has been presented.
It is true that Nintendo has relied on legal intimidation recently to enforce their copyright claims, but the difference here is that they have that right.
In the Nintendo v. Yuzu case, there was abundant evidence that the Yuzu team was deliberately profiting off of piracy. Nintendo opted to play the long game, amassing evidence to create a rock-solid argument, hence Yuzu settling out of court. There's a difference between Yuzu and, say, Ryujinx, because the profiteering off of piracy argument is much harder to prove when you don't
put that you had the game before release in writing.
I suggest reading the full suit for more information as it's very specific and helpful in explaining why the Yuzu team was in the wrong. It's not like Nintendo's independently saying "Take this down or we'll sue". THAT would be different. Nintendo always makes sure that they have legal precedent and reasoning to file a legal motion before doing so. That's why they basically never lose in court anymore.
I feel your pain with the Citra thing. Unlike Yuzu, which had Ryujinx as a viable alternative, Citra was really the only big 3DS emulator on the market, so that was a huge bummer.
