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

251–260 of 308 posts

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

#251

Post by deeg »

platevoltage wrote: post #209
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 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.

Maybe. On the other hand the only times Trump won was against a woman.

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

#252

Post by RajT88 »

bearl wrote: post #247
RajT88 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

National television news will always be what it is. The business model is ad sales, from that all else inevitably follows. A news corporation is a corporation first and foremost. That said, there wasn’t anything anomalous about the 2020 election that can’t be claimed of other elections so there’s that.

I would describe the difference as being between broadcast and 24 hour cable news. The latter will always be what it is, the former (although not quite what it used to be) is much less rage baity.

The news has always been, "if it bleeds, it leads" though.

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

#253

Post by const_cast »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #26
marstall wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

> that a sizable portion of their voting base is too dumb to get an ID

Literally not a single soul on Earth has ever said this.

Rather, what they're saying, which is an indisputable fact is:

- getting an ID requires money and access to a DMV

- DMVs are segregated by race because of prior factors like districting and redlining.

- Black Americans are more likely to vote Democrat.

- Black Americans are more likely to be poor and therefore are less likely to have an ID.

- therefore, Democrats on average have less ID.

Again, this isn't an opinion, it's just factual based off of very simple logic and statistics.

You can literally go look up, right now, what percentage of Black Americans have ID versus white Americans.

Its not a talking point, it's just real. The US is complex and has hundreds of years of extreme racism under it's belt.

Newsflash - that means not everything is perfectly split by race or equality accessible.

> The solution, if this problem exists as they say, is to get everyone proper ID

Wow, you make it sounds so easy.

Why then is it that, despite decades peddling voted ID laws, the GOP absolutely refuses to even humor the idea of making ID more accessible?

Could it be that their intentions arent as pure as yours?

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

#254

Post by RajT88 »

Nursie wrote: post #212
RajT88 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> has none of her own opinions (just a mini-Biden) She did mess up an opportunity to show that she wasn't just Biden v2 in an interview at some point, when asked what she might have done differently, there was nothing she could think of. Nothing at all. That was an open goal to differentiate that she missed. But I'm not sure it would have made a difference.

Probably not. And while there's some angle which it's fair to claim she's Biden v2, much of what my friend was sending me was edited clips making her seem like she was babbling nonsense (like the left does with Trump, except they don't have to edit the clips).

I always try to explain to him that these people he's complaining about are not exactly beloved by progressives, and that the issues they have with the candidates do not at all resemble the perception the right wing is trying to push. Progressives for example find Harris to be smart and capable, just part of the justice system which prioritizes conviction metrics over actual justice.

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

#255

Post by thinkingtoilet »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #85
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.

Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? Regulating what the media is and isn't allowed to say is a very slippery slope and it is open to abuse. If the government was responsible for this task what would prevent Trump and the republicans from hijacking it? It might be frustrating but free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy and we are much better off with it then without it. > And that wasn't even th…

Lets say you have a competing business to mine. Am I allowed to go on TV and say "DO NOT USE FridayoLeary's BUSINESS! He is a known pedophile and I have proof!" I'll put up billboards in our home town and contact any vendors and clients you have and let them know this. Is that ok with you?

Things like libel and slander are not damaging to free speech. I don't know how it happened but it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for.

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

#256

Post by AnimalMuppet »

deeg wrote: post #251
platevoltage wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe. On the other hand the only times Trump won was against a woman.

And Biden was not, shall we say, an inspiring candidate.

On the other other hand, Biden won when the first-hand memory of what Trump was like was very fresh.

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

#257

Post by yibg »

const_cast wrote: post #248
yibg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there evidence that in person voting is meaningfully more secure than other forms (like mail in voting) let alone 100% fool proof? Even assuming it is, how do we solve the other issues it causes if it's the only way to vote? e.g.: - How do US citizens that don't live or are not at the time of voting physically in the US vote? e.g. overseas military personnel. - People that live in remote areas of the country witho…

Here's the fun part: we don't solve those problems. Those aren't even actual problems, that's the intended goal. Disenfranchisement is not just a side effect, it's the main effect of this thought process.

Yea agree. I think the reality is a significant portion of the American population don't want actual democracy, in that they don't want everyone to be able to vote. It's a feature not a bug.

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

#258

Post by yibg »

jltsiren wrote: post #168
yibg wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I'm saying specifically even if we only allow in person voting with ID, there will still groups that cry foul when their team loses. Distrust in the system isn't from specific elements of how votes are cast, it's a function of the health of the society as a whole.

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

#259

Post by Zigurd »

ethbr1 wrote: post #249
bearl wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the left were really the left they wouldn’t be the left though. The NBC left is the problem, the Democracy Now left is not. The left doesn’t want Bernie, Chomsky or Amy Goodman they want The View. Turns out young men don’t want The View, so the left is stuck now much like the American right because there is no ideological coherence, just aesthetic and hatred for the other team however they are imagined (e.g. “tax…

The path to winning elections is by appealing to voters who can be swayed while keeping the base on board. The problem with Democrats winning elections (since 2016) has been the ideological purity tests their social-left demands from candidates, rendering them toxic to independents. It'd be nice if internet SJWs grew up and realized that winning elections with "don't ask don't tell" is better than losing elections wi…

I'll bet you a beer that the analysis after the midterms is going to be that Republicans shouldn't have capitulated to the tech bro neoreactionaries.

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

#260

Post by Ancapistani »

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.

I don't understand how it became the expectation that media report truth. That has _never_ been the case, since the founding of the country.

Media's role is to provide facts, sources, and synthesis. It's a starting point for discourse, not an immutable record.

If you expect _any_ media outlet to be 100% reliable and without bias, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Post reply on HN