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

181–190 of 308 posts

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

#181

Post by 1659447091 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #179
1659447091 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant forgery to obtain a student id vs a LTC. I think you are misunderstanding my intent here. The student ID thing is a weak argument. If they need a government issue ID/passport to get a student ID -- then so what if a student ID is not allowed? They already have a valid ID to vote with. It's a distraction. Texas has been doing trumpism since before trump was a thing. Allowing LTC but not student ID does 2 thing…

No, a student ID requires a valid identification which can be from their home state. But a student is allowed to vote in the state where they are attending college or their home state. But not both. Of course Texas did everything possible to make it harder for college students to vote https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/28/texas-young-voter-tu...

It doesn't matter if a student ID required a DNA test. It is simply not a valid ID as accepted by the state of Texas.

States have a constitution right to establish its voting rules. If students want to vote in Texas and Texas requires a valid Texas ID then the student needs a Texas approved valid ID to vote. There is a list of IDs the state of Texas considers valid, including a passport, however a student ID is not a valid ID as recognized by Texas for any state business.

If that is simply beyond your being able to look at without grasping for straws and moving the goal post [we are talking about LTC vs student ID specifically, if you wanted to talk about voting locations then you should of went with that and left the ID thing out of it, which was exactly my point in the first post]. Anyway the only valid conclusion I can come away with from this discussion is that you only want to indulge in faux outrage and win kudos or something.(unfortunate but what a weird way to waste time) You have fun with that and I hope you get bunches of kudos, take care.

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

#182

Post by on_the_train »

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".

Then you just throw away the ballots, mark them as invalid, fudge with the counting or the transmission of the counts. That's how we do it in my country.

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

#183

Post by somebehemoth »

atmavatar wrote: post #116
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…

Getting an ID is not as simple as you make it out to be. For many people, getting an ID requires taking a day off work, which for many can mean their family is going to miss one or more meals, or even worse, that they miss a car or rent payment. Consequently, this is also a strong reason why Republicans have repeatedly blocked attempts to make voting day a national holiday, while at the same time strategically closin…

To support the idea of unexpected difficulties in getting ID, I suggest reading about the North Carolina DMV. More direct evidence: try to schedule an appointment with the NC DMV via their online appointment system from any metropolitan area of the state and probably most others. Most people would not expect this to be a problem since the state requires online booking to do all kinds of identification related services.

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

#184

Post by RajT88 »

Onawa wrote: post #169
platevoltage wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Amer…

I have one conservative friend who insists she is stupid and has none of her own opinions (just a mini-Biden). Mind boggling indeed.

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

#185

Post by scarface_74 »

1659447091 wrote: post #181
scarface_74 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a student ID requires a valid identification which can be from their home state. But a student is allowed to vote in the state where they are attending college or their home state. But not both. Of course Texas did everything possible to make it harder for college students to vote https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/28/texas-young-voter-tu...

It doesn't matter if a student ID required a DNA test. It is simply not a valid ID as accepted by the state of Texas. States have a constitution right to establish its voting rules. If students want to vote in Texas and Texas requires a valid Texas ID then the student needs a Texas approved valid ID to vote. There is a list of IDs the state of Texas considers valid, including a passport, however a student ID is not a…

And allowing student IDs for voting isn’t some crazy liberal idea. Plenty of conservative states allow it.

https://campusvoteproject.org/student-id-as-voter-id/

You really think it’s an apolitical policy in Texas?

And states don’t have a carte blanche ability to have whatever laws they want to about voting, there were a bunch of lawsuits and laws passed in the sixties about that….

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

#186

Post by dragonwriter »

dimal wrote: post #142
mandeepj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society But that moron in WH is still spreading lies about that election; he has no shame, no remorse, no nothing. On the contrary, he was successful in portraying himself a victim and win people’s sympathy. Even though he’s the one who called insurrection. There’s no accountability for him. Look at South Korea, who i…

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.

> As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win.

Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.

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

#187

Post by mrangle »

FireBeyond wrote: post #175
mrangle wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your individual opinion of Australia, name calling, appeal to group behavior, and vague "things that work everywhere" doesn't negate the fact that not voting is a form of protest (or often just a simple preference) that a healthy democracy shouldn't have an issue with. After all, if nine months of partisan rioting in an election season is kosher before a "free and fair election", which leads to over twenty five death…

> Your individual opinion of Australia, name calling, appeal to group behavior, and vague "things that work everywhere" doesn't negate the fact that not voting is a form of protest (or often just a simple preference) that a healthy democracy shouldn't have an issue with. You are free to not vote for any candidate in Australia. You are free to write "Fuck you all" on your ballot. All you must do is attend a voting sta…

Is the counter argument that Australia has compulsory voting and that you think it's a fine place? I don't dispute the right to an opinion. You can think that Australia is great and compulsory voting is great and "works". Go in peace.

Whereas my arguments are referencing democratic logic. I'm attempting to speak to a general logical framework of principles, rather than to (too much) give specific place opinions.

I took your "counter argument" statement about the existence of Australian compulsory voting as fact.

I'm not sure what the point is of returning to, what, partially contradict me on the details of Australian voting and where it isn't exactly totally compulsory?

Truly with all due respect, I think that you're having an argument with yourself at this point.

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

#188

Post by RajT88 »

cj wrote: post #95
lesuorac wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet it's just slick if it'd help them win their case. I don't see any fix for the news cycle besides slowing it down. Even if enough happens to fill 24h in a day there isn't enough time to actually analyze it at all.

> Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet Sure, but do you really think the Fox News anchors honestly believed what they were saying? I’d venture a guess: no. They said what they said because that’s what they had to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day. Yes, lawyers will say whatever to win a case. But I highly doubt those news anchors really thought the election was stolen. It’s all for ratings. Let’s…

Jeanine Pirro likes to talk about Treason for example.

When Trump is accused of it, her background as a lawyer kicks in and she can correctly articulate the reasons why Trump has not committed Treason.

However, in any other case she will accuse all manner of folks of committing treason and request they face harsh consequences.

Fox News is lies and rage bait.

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

#189

Post by mandeepj »

RajT88 wrote: post #184
Onawa wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Amer…

I have one conservative friend who insists she is stupid and has none of her own opinions (just a mini-Biden). Mind boggling indeed.

> friend who insists she is stupid

I believe she did great during her nomination acceptance speech and during debate as well. But, you can’t make people understand something if they don’t want to.

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

#190

Post by baggy_trough »

platevoltage wrote: post #115
baggy_trough wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count me as one who strongly opposes mail-in and early voting because I believe it violates the sanctity of the voting booth.

Do you also oppose a federal election holiday? because pretty much everyone who opposes flexible voting options does so because they want less people voting.

That is an uncharitable view. There are too many federal holidays, but I would support repurposing one, or voting on the weekend.
Post reply on HN