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

131–140 of 308 posts

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

#131

Post by FireBeyond »

mrangle wrote: post #90
temp0826 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforced compulsory voting and ranked-choice voting (along with term limits and ending citizens united) would be pretty great.

Compulsory voting is what regimes do when their government is so obviously corrupt that a strong voter turnout is the only thing left that lends an air of democracy. Most often suggested if flagging voter turnout might be seen as a possible public indictment of the system's democratic legitimacy. Now we can't have that sort of protest. The People will be enthusiastic! lol.

Ahh, Australia, "so obviously corrupt" that mandatory voting is the only thing that lends an air of democracy.

I love this notion that the US is such a special snowflake that there's always a reason that things that work nearly everywhere else couldn't possibly work here.

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

#132

Post by litoE »

the_gastropod wrote: post #120
litoE wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why elections are held on a Tuesday. Why aren't they held on a Sunday, which would eliminate the excuse of "I have to go to work"?

There are people who work on Sundays.

I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe that many more people work on Tuesdays than Sundays.

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

#133

Post by platevoltage »

kg wrote: post #15
FridayoLeary wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterargument is that mail in ballots help increase voter turnouts and that requiring id will turn people away. It's a weak argument because you shouldn't try to increase turnout by making voting less secure. Any other solution should be found instead.

If we really want to increase turnout, we can just make voting mandatory like other countries have. Requiring ID is a problem given that a lot of people don't have easy access (or access at all) to legal ID, for various reasons, some as simple as cost. Having a license costs money on an ongoing basis and you need to have access to documents to prove your identity like a birth certificate, and some citizens don't have…

I used to think voting should be mandatory. Now I think that mandatory voting would just exacerbate the name-recognition issue. I have no issue with uninformed people not voting. I have a huge issue with uninformed voters voting.

We also have an entire party who thrives on reduced turnout, and they basically control everything right now.

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

#134

Post by favorited »

jeltz wrote: post #39
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…

This goes to show neither party is interested in a working society. I find republicans a lot worse but as you say of the democrats actually cared they would have done like most of the rest of the world and made sure IDs are easy to get.

How exactly are the Democrats supposed to do that? Somehow require everyone to get a passport card? Introduce some new kind of federal identification card? That would go over great.

It's impossible enough to get things done these days, why should they waste political capital solving a problem that doesn't exist?

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

#135

Post by dehrmann »

marstall wrote: post #11
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".

The arguments pro and con are purely motivated by partisan concerns. its believed that more democratic voters are less likely to have an id, therefore voter id laws supposedly favors republicans. that supposed fact is at the heart of the entire debate and as far as i know there is nothing more to it.

That's the standard narrative, but it could work out in unexpected ways because of who has time to vote and the ability to get to polling places.

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

#136

Post by evan_ »

gkoberger wrote: post #61
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.

I imagine they likely have insurance for things like this. Or at least I would, if my business model was largely based on libel.

Who would underwrite that?

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

#137

Post by platevoltage »

jeltz wrote: post #30
kg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we really want to increase turnout, we can just make voting mandatory like other countries have. Requiring ID is a problem given that a lot of people don't have easy access (or access at all) to legal ID, for various reasons, some as simple as cost. Having a license costs money on an ongoing basis and you need to have access to documents to prove your identity like a birth certificate, and some citizens don't have…

The solution is obvious: make ID free and as hassle-free as possible to get.

That would essentially make the Voter ID fight a non-issue. I'd be fine with it, but I'm not naive enough to believe that election integrity is the motivation here, because it's not.

It's about keeping the undesirables out of the voting booth.

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

#138

Post by myvoiceismypass »

ljsprague wrote: post #45
siliconc0w wrote: post #5

It's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society (like saying a election was stolen). And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation.

[flagged]

I would recommend reading the actual Mueller report and not the Bill Barr press release about the Mueller Report (or anything coming from serial liars like Giuliani and Trump).

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

#139

Post by triceratops »

mrangle wrote: post #96
kg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we really want to increase turnout, we can just make voting mandatory like other countries have. Requiring ID is a problem given that a lot of people don't have easy access (or access at all) to legal ID, for various reasons, some as simple as cost. Having a license costs money on an ongoing basis and you need to have access to documents to prove your identity like a birth certificate, and some citizens don't have…

ID isn't a poll tax because it isn't a poll tax. Voter ID requirements are no more discriminatory than they are for air travel.

TSA will let you fly without ID. They have the right to deny you if they can't verify your identity through alternative means, and I'm sure they'll give you plenty of grief. But it does happen.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification...

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

#140

Post by evan_ »

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".

Sounds good until a strongman recruits tens of thousands of masked thugs to patrol cities and beat up anyone who looks like they might vote for the opponent of said strongman.
Post reply on HN