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

201–210 of 308 posts

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

#201

Post by Sabinus »

platevoltage wrote: post #137
jeltz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. In this very thread a democrat voter is arguing that low education people that are easy to pursuade shouldn't vote.

For the Republicans it's the immoral and poor and 'non Americans' who shouldn't really be voting.

And IMO it's gross attitude for a democracy.

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

#202

Post by platevoltage »

AuthAuth wrote: post #172
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.

No he wouldnt have. The non voters didnt make enough of a difference and people who voted for trump over harris and said it was because of Gaza are not serious people and should not be catered to.

Yeah, it’s not like there was national movement of voters threatening to withhold their vote or anything.

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

#203

Post by ljsprague »

verteu wrote: post #101
ljsprague wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The Russian collusion was real - that's why Trump's campaign chairman, foreign policy adviser, personal lawyer, and National Security Adviser were all found guilty in court.

Prosecuted by which DOJ?

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

#204

Post by ljsprague »

tw04 wrote: post #86
ljsprague wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You’re talking about the literal Russian collusion by Trump campaign officials that happened? You might want to* read up on the actual case and stop listening to fox entertainment’s summaries if you think that was defamation. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/senate-russia-report-p...

Thanks for the NBC news link.

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

#205

Post by platevoltage »

mrangle wrote: post #173
platevoltage wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air Travel isn't a constitutionally protected right. Try again.

That doesn't change the discrimination logic. No one imagines that everyone is just fine with what is implied to be the same level of discrimination in accessing air travel that they state is going on when voter ID requirements are in force. And yet.

You don’t have to be fine with it. I don’t like having to take off my shoes, but I have to because it’s not a constitutionally protected right. Voter ID is also not about election integrity. It’s about adding road blocks to voting.

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

#206

Post by ljsprague »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #138
ljsprague wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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).

Have you looked at the Facebook ads Russia bought? Were those in the Mueller report?

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

#207

Post by platevoltage »

dragonwriter wrote: post #186
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.

> 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.

When you’re marching one of the most hated republicans in the country around on stage pretending like it’s going to get you more votes, while kicking one of the most popular left-wing online voices out of your convention, I understand why people would get this impression. Dems would rather lose than cede any power at all to the left flank of the party.

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

#208

Post by platevoltage »

Sabinus wrote: post #201
platevoltage wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. In this very thread a democrat voter is arguing that low education people that are easy to pursuade shouldn't vote. For the Republicans it's the immoral and poor and 'non Americans' who shouldn't really be voting. And IMO it's gross attitude for a democracy.

As long as low education people are being persuaded with facts, and not lies, vote away!

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

#209

Post by platevoltage »

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 generally have a cynical view of the people in this country, but I’m not ready to believe that a mixed race woman would have an uphill battle against a felon who already did a bad job once. Obama had an uphill battle, but he said the right things. Harris couldn’t even do that because she was only interested in Republican votes, not Leftist votes.

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

#210

Post by kristopolous »

baggy_trough wrote: post #66
kristopolous wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"sanctity of the voting booth"?! > More than one in five polling places have closed over the last decade, according to an ABC News and ABC Owned Stations analysis of data from the Election Administration and Voting Survey, the Center for New Data and the Center for Public Integrity. https://abcnews.go.com/US/protecting-vote-1-5-election-day-p... This is after Shelby County v. Holder, and now states are shutting down…

Yes that’s right, the sanctity of the voting booth. The ability, and indeed the requirement, to vote in private so as to avoid all influence is an important value. Of course, one may prepare beforehand.

Politicians writing rules to suppress the votes they don't want, is this a brand new concept to you?

Have you honestly never heard of this before?

Does the actual reality that exist in the actual world that we actually live in matter more?

Tossing unnecessary burdens on the process is how they mess with this thing you think is so holy

Post reply on HN