Polling data also told us there was no chance in hell that Trump would get the nomination.

Yes. Really. Someone more moderate against an extreme right wing guy is better than an extreme left wing against an extreme right wing.

Those polls are now months old. I have not seen a recent one, unless I’m missing something.

Doubt it. The only person who could have replaced her at the convention was Sanders. And the democrats are much better off with Hillary against Trump than Sanders.

Don’t assume just because people are grieving that they aren’t also greedy. People can be both.

Ah, I see.

Are we talking about the state suit or the federal suit? And the decision could not have simply been based upon “policy reasons.” Obviously it was based upon the law, and I don’t doubt that policy was an element of it. But this lawsuit was always a long shot. I don’t know any lawyer who did not think it was. So, maybe…

I never said that deterrence was against future victims of a massacre. I said it was deterrence against all the unsupportable claims people tend to file against big corporations. And large corporations make that decision all the time. For example, the reason this company did not simply settle the lawsuit at some point…

No kidding. Stranger things have happened. On that we can agree.

You realize that “sue-happy” is simply a term to describe a litigious society right? If you prefer the term “litigious society” as opposed to “sue-happy society”, then feel free to insert it and reread my comment. Of course victims are not happy. But they also should not seek to blame a company who was not at fault.…

But who has a reasonable expectation that a movie theater is going to have security to protect you from a gunman? Or to protect you from anyone? It’s a movie theater. Exacerbation is not enough under the law if you cannot prove foreseeability or causation. In any case, of course the victims had every right to sue the…

Exactly.

Well, considering that causation is one of the main elements of negligence, it certainly was not a supportable claim.

I would be really, really surprised of a court holds that the DNC owes a fiduciary duty to every registered democrat in the United States.

It does when the federal court dismisses it on a motion to dismiss.

Back at ya.

Agreed. But I also think there is a deterrence factor here they weighed. They sent a message to every person who thinks they can file an unsupported lawsuit against the company that the company is going to play hardball. It’s not actually a bad tactic for a business that probably gets hundreds of lawsuits filed…

Well, the federal court threw it out on a motion to dismiss. So the court believed it was frivolous.

You are forgetting the deterrence factor, though. You know how often companies who make millions of dollars get sued by people for bullshit claims? These claims should have never been brought. And if this company paid legal fees every time a frivolous claim was brought against it (without seeking their fees and…

That is not saying you are “wrong.” I was just offering a different perspective. Everything is not black and white, particularly when talking about litigation tactics. I’m sorry you got upset over someone trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.