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

281–290 of 308 posts

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

#281

Post by ethbr1 »

Zigurd wrote: post #259
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…

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.

Depends which way control goes, which depends on the economy in November 2026 + redistricting outcomes.

And I'd say the excesses are equal part tech bro neoreactionaries + nativist Heritage / Project 2025 folks, each of which contributed their own toxic ingredients.

It's rapidly becoming apparent that Trump doesn't actually care about much ideologically and generally blows whichever way the last person in the room asked him to.

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

#282

Post by platevoltage »

ethbr1 wrote: post #280
platevoltage wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Going all in on Israel in 2024 WAS the social political landmine. A half-assed attempt at sorta kinda defending trans people wasn't.

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

#283

Post by platevoltage »

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.

I struggle to think of anything she could have said.

As much as this feels crazy to say, Biden was the most progressive president we've ever had in modern times.

She could have said that she would address some of the many boogie-men that the republicans created. I don't see how that would have helped. She was already running as a 90's republican to begin with.

She could have said she would push for universal healthcare, which she was not willing to do.

She could have said she would re-evaluate our relationship with Israel, that was not going to happen.

She would get student load forgiveness done. Hard to believe given all of the roadblocks there.

The only thing I can think of is saying she would get cannabis legalized. Definite missed opportunity there.

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

#284

Post by baggy_trough »

ThrowMeAway1618 wrote: post #274
baggy_trough wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

I think you are trampling curiosity right now.

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

#285

Post by ethbr1 »

platevoltage wrote: post #282
ethbr1 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Going all in on Israel in 2024 WAS the social political landmine. A half-assed attempt at sorta kinda defending trans people wasn't.

So your offered alternative is {everything the same, except harder/softer? on Israel}?

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

#286

Post by Nursie »

platevoltage wrote: post #283
Nursie wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I struggle to think of anything she could have said. As much as this feels crazy to say, Biden was the most progressive president we've ever had in modern times. She could have said that she would address some of the many boogie-men that the republicans created. I don't see how that would have helped. She was already running as a 90's republican to begin with. She could have said she would push for universal healthca…

> I struggle to think of anything she could have said.

Me too, but that's why I'm not a politician with a legion of advisers :)

I get that she didn't want to bad-mouth Joe or accidentally criticise her own record as VP in the process.

I think the cannabis one might have made some difference - it's clear that the US is ready for it, she could have declared she wanted to hand the power to the states to make their own decisions by legalising it at a federal level, that sort of thing. Hard to tell even in hindsight!

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

#287

Post by southernplaces7 »

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…

[flagged]

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

#288

Post by defrost »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #287
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…

[flagged]

As much as I agree with your main central paragraph, this

  Then yes, there's the SJW issue and the completely unfounded amount of obeisance to it that many democrats and their supporters expressed.
seems misplaced.

For context, I've been watching UK, US, AU, and CA news and politics for decades and my observation is that relatively few on left | liberal | progressive could honestly be described as all in, full on, brain washed followers of SJW issues, trans rights, drag shows, et al. The majority didn't seem to deeply care much past the basic human rights issues of everyone should be able to find a bathroom and most people should be allowed to express themselves.

Almost without exception everything I heard about SJW issues originated from right wing, post Reagan Republican, neo Conservative, Fox | Sky Media type sources.

Without taking a side, just observing the political strategy aspect, this was a strong winning tactic for the US right - hammer endlessly on essentially meaningless issues and raise the perceived threat level to sway the masses, offering a solution to breadcrumbs in the bedding type issues that now rank as empire ending catastrophic confrontations.

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

#289

Post by UmGuys »

asdfasvea wrote: post #242
UmGuys wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um. Tr*mp is the most unhinged and stupid person. He's never been able to form a coherent sentence and can only exist because he was born a millionaire. I always thought Biden was much smarter, well spoken, and honest than Tr*mp. Do you disagree?

What's the * doing? Is that you civil disobedience? Is that how you stick it to the man? Do you think it's the way to sway people who are in the fence about trump? I just don't get people and their nano aggressions.

I censor his name in order to not boost it for his benefit. I don't want to be ambivalent about my opposition to violence.

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

#290

Post by UmGuys »

jurking_hoff wrote: post #244
UmGuys wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, we didn't prosecute the ring leader of the Jan. 6 insurrection. We need to finish reconstruction and punish the people who spread hate, fear, and anger. We can only grow divided otherwise.

[dead]

I don't know who y'all is. It's unlikely the US will have free or fair elections ever again. Remember what happened on Jan 6?
Post reply on HN