An alternative title had been “Trump accepts millions in bribes”. $75mn of those from one fraudster who seem to have bought himself a “Get Out of Jail Free card” https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/business/crypto-mogul-trump-coins-civil-fraud-charges/index.html

Should clarify that what I meant with it making sense in the UK is that their election system results in that the party that get most seats usually get over 50%, which means that “winning” and winning often become the same thing. Except 2017, when the Tories only lacked 5 seats to have over 50%, and 2010, when the Tories and LibDem were in a rare coalition, so do you have to go all the way back to 1974 to find another election where the party that “won” did not get over 50% and 1923 to find an election where the party that “won” de facto lost. Hence, I do understand the use of that language there, as it usually is relevant who “won”.

Great news. However, am I the only one annoyed by the phrase “winning an election”, used three times in the article? I note that the author is from the UK and that phrase does make sense in their system. However, in most of Europe is it not weird or even uncommon that the party that gets the most votes and seats de facto lose the election and end up in opposition; as it’s all about getting more than 50% of the parliament. Getting the most votes and seats is nothing more than nice statistics, if you can’t get more than 50% behind you.

A more accurate text had been “FPÖ, despite getting the most seats in the parliament, are in the end in fact losers”

Let’s not just blame the orange one and the couch fucker. You also had their cadre of far-right “journalists” who took a break from their normal conspiracies to get into a fight about Zelensky’s choice of clothes.