Fox News Is Sued by Election Technology Company for over $2.7B

"It’s been forgotten this was actually a business-wide consensus, which included the enthusiastic participation of a blue-state intelligentsia. The New Yorker of Remnick, who himself wrote a piece called “Making the Case,” was a source of many of the most ferocious pro-invasion pieces, including a pair written by current Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, one of a number of WMD hawks who failed up after the war case fell apart. Other prominent Democrat voices like Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait, and even quasi-skeptic Nick Kristof (who denounced war critics for calling Bush a liar) were on board, as a Full Metal Jacket character put it, “for the big win.”

The Washington Post and New York Times were key editorial-page drivers of the conflict; MSNBC unhired Phil Donahue and Jesse Ventura over their war skepticism; CNN flooded the airwaves with generals and ex-Pentagon stoolies, and broadcast outlets ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS stacked the deck even worse: In a two-week period before the invasion, the networks had just one American guest out of 267 who questioned the war, according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting."

- Matt Taibi, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...

I’m only aware of allegations of fraud pertaining to 1960, 2000, 2004, and 2020. I’m not really able to sit here and tell you what elections were fraudulent and which ones were not. That’s basically the point. No one knows, and the government never bothers to investigate or update the systems to anything less reliant on the honor system. They buy new equipment all the time, but it never becomes secure. They get allegations of fraud from time to time, but somehow no one ever gets away with it, even though election security experts have long sounded the alarm about election integrity. Imagine that: an adversarial contest with high stakes and poor process controls, but no one ever cheats! The casinos should hire the people in charge of elections.

> So the big bad guys are only being fraudulent once in a while, even though they get away with it every time. I don’t understand these mental gymnastics.

Frankly thats because you’re not trying to understand very hard. I have not spoken on the frequency of fraud nor argued that they do or do not “get away with it.” The gymnastics are all yours.

> Either believe in democracy (with all its flaws) or you don’t.

I’m glad you recognize that its a belief system and not any sort of rational social function.

> Democracy works and is trusted because we can verify with hand recounts what happened.

That doesn’t protect against ballot stuffing, among other things. You still have to trust the people doing the counting. This doesn’t do anything to protect against spoiling ballots for candidates that you don’t want to win.

> Saying that the results are unverifiable is dishonest.

It is dishonest to say that results are verifiable when they are not. It is dishonest to say you can prove the election wasn’t stolen when you cannot prove so. Why are you so threatened by plain statements about the security of elections? What is there to hide?

> If you want to reinforce democracy, then put effort into fixing it. Your current tone only serves to cast doubt about democracy.

I can’t even get you to acknowledge there is anything to fix.