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

271–280 of 308 posts

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

#271

Post by platevoltage »

Ancapistani wrote: post #263
platevoltage wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should ID's be free and easy to get, because if not, this would amount to a poll tax, which has been deemed unconstitutional. We are also not required to have or carry ID to carry out any of our constitutionally protected rights. We would need to set up a service where a representative from the government would come to your house on demand, verify your identity, and issue you a free ID whether you live in downtown DC…

> We are also not required to have or carry ID to carry out any of our constitutionally protected rights. Go buy a gun without ID, and tell me how it goes.

Ah yes, one of the only parts of the constitution that feature the word "regulated".

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

#272

Post by bediger4000 »

platevoltage wrote: post #150
baggy_trough wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to have an ID to work. If we need to get non-workers ID in order to have secure elections, that is money well spent.

That has to happen before we can even talk about Voter ID requirements. I've NEVER seen a Republican mention this as an idea.

The "before" part is important. Guess the order in which these two things get implemented.

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

#273

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

Zigurd wrote: post #266
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it wasn't important only that it affects relatively few people compared to food prices. Everyone eats.

Everyone has a mother. Most people have at least one of a sister, a wife, a daughter. But I would venture to guess that most people here think more about what Moldbug thinks about democracy, than what their sister might have to make decisions about.

I don't like or follow Moldbug. Most women never have or need abortions so it doesn't affect them. Even if it affected every woman (half the population) food prices are still better to run on because everyone eats.

I just agree with Carville that Dems can't make any change while losing so they should focus on winning.

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

#274

Post by ThrowMeAway1618 »

baggy_trough wrote: post #239
alistairSH wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you mean - every implementation of mail-in ballots I've seen has a doubly sealed pair of envelopes. It's no less secret than pushing a button in a booth. The ballot is physically checked (but not counted) upon receipt and an email/text/etc is sent to confirm delivery with no issues.

I'm talking about the "abusive spouse" attack, which can take many forms. So the time between receiving the ballot and mailing it back is when privacy is easily violated.

[flagged]

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

#275

Post by thinkingtoilet »

Ancapistani wrote: post #262
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fundamen…

That is clearly protected speech. For it to be anything else requires a state-sponsored arbiter of truth, which is such an anti-pattern that Orwell featured it as a central theme in Nineteen Eighty-Four. As for libel/slander laws - truth is an affirmative defense. If your "proof" is factual -- even if it's insufficient to prove your claim -- then go for it. > it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand ho…

Obviously my point was based on what if I'm saying is a lie.

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

#276

Post by Ancapistani »

platevoltage wrote: post #271
Ancapistani wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are also not required to have or carry ID to carry out any of our constitutionally protected rights. Go buy a gun without ID, and tell me how it goes.

Ah yes, one of the only parts of the constitution that feature the word "regulated".

I'm not here to have that debate. I'm using it as a counter-example.

You said ID was not required to carry out any other Constitutionally-protected rights. That is simply untrue, as illustrated by my example.

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

#277

Post by dimal »

UmGuys wrote: post #226
Gud wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The democrats ran with and lied about Joe Biden. That is why you now have an unhinged narcissist running the show.

I disagree. We have Tr*mp because his team is able to successfully motivate angry, hateful, and scared people. There are a lot of these people, they are not smart, and they are mad. MAGA directs that anger. They simply figured out how to enthrall bad people.

All the Democrats needed to do was get 5% in the middle, not the core MAGA voters. There’s no way they could reach those people. Putting up Biden and then lying about his mental health destroyed their credibility. Even with that, Harris was within striking distance.

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

#278

Post by dimal »

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.

You think that running a candidate with dementia, then giving the nomination to the next default person in line was a good strategy? Even with those fuckups, Harris didn’t get completely trounced. If they had put up any reasonable candidate who got the nomination fair and square, they probably would have won.

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

#279

Post by baggy_trough »

platevoltage wrote: post #270
baggy_trough wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

repurposing one, fine as long as its not one of the "bank holidays" where retail goes into overdrive. Lower income people are more likely to be working on weekends, so no on that one. I believe that you'd need a constitutional amendment to change the day too.

Well, now you're the one throwing up objections. As far as a constitutional amendment, no, you're wrong.

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

#280

Post by ethbr1 »

platevoltage wrote: post #268
ethbr1 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is basically a Bill Maher monologue. We live in a country where a pathological liar can turn less than a dozen people in the NCAA into a national issue, but you think the best way to counter that is march a robot out on to the mic to say "I believe we are all equal, vote for me". This is who those "Join the conversation" Pepsi ads that went over so well were designed for.

It's strawmaning the argument to imply that only a robot can choose what to dive into details on.

Democrats should be diving into the details on progressive economic platforms every chance they get, as wholly, messily, and authentically as they can.

But yes, they should refuse to jump on progressive social landmines their opponents lay out.

What's your alternative and better suggestion?

Post reply on HN