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

301–308 of 308 posts

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

#301

Post by ethbr1 »

defrost wrote: post #299
southernplaces7 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll have to partly disagree. I don't want to imply that the whole SJW issue was a driving factor, because I don't think it was. The American dems lost the narrative on many practical subjects that too many fence margin voters really cared about, and while the conservatives, MAGA types and republicans overblew aspects of the SJW side of Dem discourse, it was and is a real thing, frequently given obiesance to and in w…

FWiW I'm in Australia with a similar enough (I'm aware of the yawning chasm of differences) population with pride parades, trans people, social justice calls, etc. We've been through the political immigration hysteria, "Stop the boats" and "Babies overboard" tipped elections and spawned offshore processing policies that were the envy of Trump v1.0. That said, hyping fear of trans people following the lead of US podca…

See also Franklin 'those who would trade a freedom for a very little bit of safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.' (Granted, he was talking about a Pennsylvanian state finance matter in the quote origination, but it's still a good quip)

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

#303

Post by verteu »

ljsprague wrote: post #203
verteu wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, of course all four trials were rigged, along with the 2020 election.

And MEXICO is going to pay for the Wall!

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

#304

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #17
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".

You're downvoted but requiring voter ID should be 100% mandatory. There's a near 100% overlap between states not requiring voter ID and states where democrats won. And that since many elections. The correlation statistically makes absolutely zero sense. The only logical explanation is that illegals do vote and that they do mainly vote for democrats.

> There's a near 100% overlap between states not requiring voter ID and states where democrats won.

Interesting how there's a near 100% overlap of states which didn't implement this form of voter disenfranchisement and states where Democrats won. Thank you for informing me of that.

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

#305

Post by platevoltage »

baggy_trough wrote: post #279
platevoltage wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I am wrong. I thought Election Day was defined in the constitution, but it’s actually federal law.

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

#306

Post by mrangle »

platevoltage wrote: post #267
mrangle wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't following the conversation, and your own rhetorical examples are becoming confused beyond comprehension as a result. I disagree in regard to your assertion as to what voter ID is about.

“the state’s new Voter ID law is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” - Mike Turzai. Disagree all you want, they aren’t exactly keeping it a secret.

I do disagree.

You aren't quoting a "they", you are quoting one man.

Last, by your logic, eliminating voter ID is about winning elections for the democrats.

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

#307

Post by mrangle »

Nursie wrote: post #236
mrangle wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. One has to be publicly seen to not-vote for the "not-voting" to be a protest. The protest is in the visible lack of turnout, and more relevantly in the lack of turnout of voting blocks that have historically shown up. Still agree? I know that this is hard for you guys. So I'll simplify it with an example scenario, which also tests your democratic moral logic. Which is more democratic? An election of Kim Jong Un i…

Utter nonsense mate. Lack of turnout has never made the blindest bit of difference anywhere, and is indistinguishable from laziness and disinterest in actually democratic countries. But in Australia we can see the numbers who spoiled their votes. In North Korea Kim Jong Un is free to invent the attendance figures just as much as he is the prevalence of votes for himself.

Your response ignores my points and sounds very North Korean, in defense of a North Korean style voting system.

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

#308

Post by phendrenad2 »

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.

It's even worse than that: This was likely a one-off. Note that Newsmax is the only organization that's having to pay (at least, that I know of). That's because Newsmax probably wasn't very careful not to state things as fact that they didn't have solid evidence of. The news has been perfectly capable of fooling people but weaseling out at the last moment with a "according to an anonymous source" at the end (that's how CNN does it, anyway). Also note that the judge in this case left it up to the jury to decide if the accusations were done with malice, I.E. to harm Dominion as a company, and the jury apparently decided that yes, it did (or were big enough Newsmax dislikers to swing that way anyway). Different jury, different outcome.
Post reply on HN