Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 308 posts

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#161

Post by 1659447091 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #122
sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its believed that more democratic voters are less likely to have an id This notion that Democrats keep pushing - that a sizable portion of their voting base is too dumb to get an ID - when massive developing countries like India that are still struggling with basic things like sanitation have long ago solved this problem - is nothing short of embarrassing. There are people in rural India that live in straw huts tha…

The red states consistently make it harder for Democratic leaning populations to get ID. Everything from closing places where ID is available to places like Texas make gun permits a legal form of ID and not student IDs. In some places native Americans can’t get IDs because of their address. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-... https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/voter-discrimination-t...…

> to places like Texas make gun permits a legal form of ID and not student IDs.

A student ID does not require the holder to get both a state and FBI background check. Besides the background checks, obtaining a license to carry (Texas gun permit) also requires an ID that could be used for voting itself. Student IDs, not so much. Also, I think people really underestimate the number of Democrat leaning gun owners in Texas.

There are far more relevant examples to use, including cost and difficultly navigating bureaucracy for obtaining documents. Throwing that Texas example in there weakens the argument and I really wish people would stop so the real arguments can be taken seriously.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#162

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

cj wrote: post #124
mapt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To willingly lie about something you need to be able to differentiate truth from fiction. Defamation hinges on either this willing lie ("malice") or on negligence (and the expected due diligence for a self-professed news organization is high). There is a little performative middle ground here, but WHATEVER is argued in court does not moot the things argued at every commercial break about trusting their news instituti…

> Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire Their homepage right now is featuring a pull up and push up contest between Hegseth and RFK jr. It hardly appears as though they’re trying to be a legitimate news network. (Same goes for CNN - both are incredibly and undeniably outrageous in their reporting) But I agree, their audiences take their reporting seriously, even if they themselves are just saying wh…

It's the narcissist's "Ha ha ha only joking" defence.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#163

Post by scarface_74 »

1659447091 wrote: post #161
scarface_74 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The red states consistently make it harder for Democratic leaning populations to get ID. Everything from closing places where ID is available to places like Texas make gun permits a legal form of ID and not student IDs. In some places native Americans can’t get IDs because of their address. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-... https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/voter-discrimination-t...…

> to places like Texas make gun permits a legal form of ID and not student IDs. A student ID does not require the holder to get both a state and FBI background check. Besides the background checks, obtaining a license to carry (Texas gun permit) also requires an ID that could be used for voting itself. Student IDs, not so much. Also, I think people really underestimate the number of Democrat leaning gun owners in Tex…

To get a student ID, you have to have a government ID from your home state or a passport. You don’t think schools just take your word for it as they allow you to use their services that cost tens of thousands a year?

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#164

Post by 1659447091 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #163
1659447091 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to places like Texas make gun permits a legal form of ID and not student IDs. A student ID does not require the holder to get both a state and FBI background check. Besides the background checks, obtaining a license to carry (Texas gun permit) also requires an ID that could be used for voting itself. Student IDs, not so much. Also, I think people really underestimate the number of Democrat leaning gun owners in Tex…

To get a student ID, you have to have a government ID from your home state or a passport. You don’t think schools just take your word for it as they allow you to use their services that cost tens of thousands a year?

Community colleges also issue student IDs

Forgery is far more simple for those than a LTC

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#165

Post by jibal »

pstuart wrote: post #160
jibal wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story wasn't sketchy. Rather's claims about GWB's service were correct and well documented ... it was only the Killian memo that was apparently inauthentic ... but it may well have been transcribed using later technology.

That was the beauty of it -- it changed the story from the known facts about Bush into Rather using forged documents. It was a very clever trick, I'll give him that.

Yes, very Rovian. Of course Rather and CBS can be faulted for not doing due diligence, but this is how the right uses incidental mistakes to obscure the facts.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#166

Post by bediger4000 »

baggy_trough wrote: post #118
bediger4000 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly is insecure about voting by mail? Are drop off ballot boxes also insecure? In the same or different ways?

There's no way to know who actually filled it out, for example.

That's true in any Australian ballot system - there' no link from ballot to human voter, and that's for a reason.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#167

Post by duxup »

whatsupdog wrote: post #4

Unpopular opinion: Paper ballots with in person voting (with an ID) is the only 100% fool proof and verifiable voting system. Everything else could be manipulated or hacked. And when there's trillions of dollars and world power on the line, it's just a matter of time when the "could be" turns to "would be".

In Minnesota we have paper ballots, we run them through an optical scanner straight into a lockbox attached to the scanner. The scanner counts the votes, but there's a paper copy and they can audit the machine and ballot 1:1.

In theory you could just run it through the exact machine again and you'd get a good test for what is going on, and you have a physical copy to count / verify.

I think it is a good system, and about as close to digital as I want to get.

Some solid old school tech and some reasonably new.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#168

Post by jltsiren »

yibg wrote: post #143
jltsiren wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I happen to think the pros aren't worth the cons and that most of the handwringing around mail in ballots and machines are FUD rather than measured concerns. You can't trust the machines. You can't trust the election authorities. You can't trust the post office. Those are fundamental assumptions, not FUD or measured concerns. Elections should be designed for bad situations, because the results don't matter that muc…

There has been no evidence of wide spread fraud and there is every evidence that elections have been legitimate and fair. A non trivial portion of the population still thinks the 202 elections was rigged. End of the day, somme people will consider whatever doesn't go their way rigged. Right now the complaint for voter fraud are things like no ID requirements, mail in ballots etc. If those go away it'll be something e…

You have a short-term perspective. Republics often last longer than a human lifetime. They should prepare for scenarios that happen once every few centuries.

The most important aspect of elections is that the vast majority of losers accept the outcome. If they don't, the elections failed. It doesn't really matter if there was fraud or if the losers just don't accept the result. The fundamental reason is the same in both cases: too many citizens don't support the system.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#169

Post by Onawa »

platevoltage wrote: post #155
dimal wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had been worried about what would happen as the American republic goes down, whether other countries would follow suit. So those two examples are cause for hope. As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. And they did absolutely everything wrong. I almost blame them as much as Trump for this mess.

You're not wrong. Biden, who is basically an unwrapped mummy at this point would have won easily if he handled Israel/Gaza with any sort of grace. All Harris had to do was challenge Biden's position on the issue, and not parade Liz Cheney out on stage like the "disillusioned Republican vote" was a real thing.

Harris would have had an uphill battle even if she had a full campaign cycle. After quizzing many conservatives, I unfortunately heard entirely too many responses of, "women leaders are unstable", "wouldn't be respected on the world stage", "she fakes her accent(s)", "I don't even know what she campaigned on", and other mind-boggling reasons they wouldn't vote for her.

At this point, I have lost all faith in the American electorate to rise above bigotry and see past social media propaganda.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#170

Post by phonon »

benjiro wrote: post #74
alistairSH wrote: post #2

~1/3 of their annual revenue. Not nothing, but likely small enough that it’s just a cost of doing business and not a real deterrent. IMO.

Annual revenue is not profit. This is the money earned without all the costs of running the business. For instance, the total revenue was 171m in 2024. But the cost of revenue was 86m. Then you need to remove the operation expenses, that are 153m. So in 2024, the before taxes net income was a loss of 69 million. In 2025 they are currently at -30m because it seems they cut in their Operating Expense. Explains some of…

Well, Newsmax raised about $400 million this year in stock sales, so they can easily afford it.
Post reply on HN