Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
from the paper-tigers-asked-to-convert-allegations-to-USD dept
The failed insurrection may be over -- all but the Capitol cops ending their own lives after being assaulted by "law and order" types, who thought they could bypass the peaceful transfer of power with violence. (Fuck all those people, by the way -- all 500+ of them.) But the hope remains. It must have been stolen, say a collection of denialists and grifters. Let's win back the election process, say those unable to count votes or put their faith in the institution that put their boy in the White House in the first place (looking at you, Electoral College).
So the grift continues. So does the denialism. But it's going to start costing people some serious money. The people that decided that backdrafting Trump's odorous emanations following the November election are still theoretically on the hook for besmirching the election process and the machinery behind it.
While it's always appropriate to question the security and trustworthiness of election tech, it makes zero sense to air a bunch of insane conspiracies as actual fact. A bunch of acolytes thought they could call the presidential election into question if they amplified QAnon-level speculation into the public discourse. The stupidity of these actions has been called out by a frequent target of unvetted speculation: Dominion Voting Systems.
The challenges were only raised in areas where Trump expected to win but lost, indicating these "challenges" had nothing to do with election integrity. After all, if the integrity of the election was in question, wouldn't these people be questioning election results where Trump won? Everyone knows it's a façade -- a carelessly edited sermon to the converted. Playing to the base usually pays off. But it may not in these cases.
Dominion has been suing over these false statements, implications, and complete, utter bullshit. The company first targeted Trump legal figures (both past and present) like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. Now it's coming for Trump's favorite non-gorilla-related programmers: One America Network and Newsmax. Both companies stepped up during Trump's last couple of years mismanaging the country to prove they could be even further right than far-right mainstay Fox News.
Two more lawsuits have been filed by Dominion. They reiterate many of the same allegations raised against Powell and Giuliani. That shows "Republican" figureheads have all been operating off the same cheat sheet when it comes to contesting the parts of the election they don't like.
I won't quote the latest lawsuits by Dominion at length. We've already covered the lies and misinformation spread by defendants who now claim this was all just heated rhetoric and hyperbole (even when portraying these same claims as "evidence" of voter fraud in lawsuits where they were the plaintiff). It's all more of the same: a debunking of literally incredible claims by defendants willing to sell out their credibility (if not their defamation insurance providers) by attaching themselves like so many remora on a shark in the midst of capsizing in its own wake.
Here's one representative accusation (taken from Dominion's suit [PDF] against One America Network):
OAN spread these lies by broadcasting and promoting interviews with discredited figures such as Sidney Powell, Rudolph Giuliani, Patrick Byrne, and Mike Lindell. But OAN went further, helping create and nurture the false and fabricated Dominion narrative by endorsing, promoting, and manufacturing these known falsehoods, including by pointing to the so-called “evidence” OAN was broadcasting in support of these lies and by falsely claiming the lies had corroborated “all of our investigations.”
To capitalize on the interest its target audience had in the false Dominion narrative, OAN effectively deputized its Chief White House Correspondent, Chanel Rion, as an in-house spokesperson for all Dominion-related content. After priming its viewers with a steady diet of post-election programming falsely claiming Dominion rigged the 2020 election, OAN and Rion began producing an entire line of programming exclusively devoted to defaming Dominion, descriptively named “Dominion-izing the Vote,” which branded OAN’s disinformation and defamation campaign against Dominion into a single catchy phrase that is now synonymous with fraudulently flipping votes.
How much of this will be determined to be defamation rather than heated electoral-related rhetoric remains to be seen. But enough Trump acolytes decided it was better to tongue the ex-presidential boot than protect themselves from billions of dollars of defamation damages. And that's fine. The law protects the assertions of inveterate assholes. But it doesn't protect the supposedly factual claims of people not in possession of actual facts. That's libel. And that's going to add up to real money should a court decide Dominion is in the right.
Dominion has also sued [PDF] Patrick Byrne, the Overstock.com founder. Someday the time capsule will be exhumed and our descendants will wonder how a pillow salesman and an internet entrepreneur became inextricably entangled in presidential politics. Wikipedia's explanation of "dark money" will likely fail to clarify anything. But Byrne better have a satisfactory explanation for his decision to translate his late-stage-capitalism failures into election theft electioneering. LOL deeply at the opening sentence:
After blowing up his career at Overstock by having an affair with a Russian spy, Patrick Byrne soon found himself a new pet project: promoting the false narrative that the 2020 election had been stolen. In fact, as Byrne has publicly admitted, he had already committed to that narrative three months before the election took place. After the election, Byrne manufactured and promoted fake evidence to convince the world that the 2020 election had been stolen as part of a massive international conspiracy among China, Venezuelan and Spanish companies, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), prominent Republicans, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Dominion, which, Byrne falsely claimed, committed fraud and helped steal the 2020 presidential election.
Don't be shitty, Patty. You're too smart for that, alleges Dominion.
Byrne was not hoodwinked by the ex-con or the conspiracy-theorists-for-hire. He is far too intelligent to buy the nonsense he has been selling to the American public. He is a Dartmouth-educated Marshall Scholar with a PhD from Stanford who, until he was pushed out in disgrace in 2019, had a national platform as the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company. By lying about the 2020 election, Byrne catapulted himself back into the national spotlight, where he promoted himself as an “us-against-the-world” hero, and won access to the highest echelons of political power, including an in-person meeting with Trump at the White House.
LOL. This is Dominion preemptively striking any motions by Byrne saying he was just talking out of his ass. He had to know what he said was not only false, but demonstrably false. And yet he chose to do it anyway.
Dominion has a high bar to meet in its defamation lawsuits. Good. That's the way it should be. If defendants can indicate they were just being hyperbolic when discussing election issues, that protects the rest of us who don't have internet startups or pillow companies to absorb the blows of speech-related lawsuits. But Dominion's suits appear to allege defendants knew they were trafficking in lies but chose to do so anyway. And that certainly shouldn't protect the Sydney Powells and OANs of the world from putting their reputations (and liquid funds) at stake to stump for an obstinate failure and his inability to accept reality.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, election, election integrity, patrick byrne, voting, voting machines
Companies: dominion, newsmax, oan, oann
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Damn. I’m on the side of a corporate behemoth in this fight, and all I needed to get there was watching a bunch of right-wing grifters lie about election integrity. How dare those assholes make me side with Dominion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
" How dare those assholes make me side with Dominion."
Perhaps you should stand on principle and realize that elections are basic public function and anyone carrying out a public function has zero right to sue for libel. As it relates to the election Dominion is no different than the government and a libel suit is a 1st Amendment violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
That's what happens when you outsource government services. The outsourcing company can sue for defamation where a government service would be breaking the first amendment if it did so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
lolwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
Chozen has never had the first clue about how the law works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
Actually, it is different. It merely supplies equipment to the government, which is then used as part of the election.
The same is true of the paving company which poured the asphalt (should have been concrete, but that is a different complaint) over which the ballot boxes are transported. Also, the company that sold the vans the county used to transport the ballot boxes.
Delivering and counting the votes are essential functions in an election. But that does not make equipment vendors into government actors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
So this would also apply to military contractors like Halliburton. Now granted there is not much case law on this. Most military contractors like Haliburton know full well that any libel suit isn't getting past motion for dismal.
There was a libel suit filed by Blackwater that was thrown out under SLAPP.
I hope this case gets to the SCOTUS because this is an issue that needs to be hashed out.
We have the Biden administration looking into partnering with private contractors to evade constructional constraints on surveillance. This use of contactors is relatively new and murky having largely grown out of the war on terror. The courts have to step in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Show Some Integrity Maybe
Let's add SLAPP laws to the rather extensive list of thing you know nothing about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can borrow my pillow to scream into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Say what, you haven't brought suit against them yet?! They need to pay for their thoughtlessness, big time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st Amendment Loop Hole
So you are free to criticize an election if the government does it, even to the point of conspiracy theories, but if the government uses a private contractor you loose that right.
Seems like a loophole to me. Why wouldn't the government contract out such public functions if doing so allows the the usurpation of basic rights because the public function now enjoys private protections such as libel?
I don't really care if Newsmax and OAN are right or wrong. Elections are a basic public function. Dominion has zero right to file libel suits related to criticism of how it carried out a public function. It doesn't matter if that criticism is right or wrong. In carrying out a public function Dominion is acting as the government should have zero private protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
One word: damages. The First Amendment is the People's interest and any damages of the government are paid for by the People's money. The Constitution says that it's worth the People's money earmarked for the government (namely general taxes). It doesn't say it's worth Dominion's money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
"Criticize an election." Wrong.
Lie persistently about someone being corrupt and performing massive illegal activities? That's defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Like a Secretary of State who in most states handles elections? How much libel did Katherine Harris endure. I don't think it ever crossed her mind to sue for libel. In contracting with the state to tabulate votes they are assuming a public function, a public function generally and traditionally performed by the Secretary of State and the office. A contractor should have no more legal recourse than the Secretary of State. If the private contractor enjoys greater legal privilege than the Secretary of State when engaging in a function of the Secretary of State then the contract is infringing on the rights of the people.
I believe there was a case in the mid 2000s when Blackwater tried to sue for libel. The 4th circuit quickly thru the case out because the alleged libel was related to the execution of a government contract for a basic public function, in that case military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
So you are free to criticize an election if the government does it, even to the point of conspiracy theories, but if the government uses a private contractor you loose that right.
Um. No. No one said that. Nothing in this article suggests that.
Do you always make shit up when you can't push your chosen narrative? It's embarrassingly transparent.
You are always free to criticize an election. What you cannot do is, with actual malice (per NYT v. Sullivan) state deliberate false facts about someone or some company that is designed to harm their reputation. That's wholly different from "criticizing an election."
Dominion has zero right to file libel suits related to criticism of how it carried out a public function.
This is simply incorrect. You do not understand what you are talking about and your ignorance shows.
However, if we're going on about claims that a gov't official cannot sue for libel, does that mean you agree that Devin Nunes' various lawsuits are not allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Speaking of our favorite whipping boy....
Comes to that, it would seem that his suits for defamation have no weight - the evidence that he wasn't defamed (except for his personal feelz) is that he was re-elected quite handily. I'd say "case dismissed for lack of merit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Mike, you have repeatedly buried you head in the sand when it comes to public function and other basic legal precidence basic state actor law. Your go to argument has always been 'that isn't 100%' the same. Its your stock in trade argument you might say.
You make ridiculous arguments like 'You cant treat BigTech as a common carrier because BigTech isn't the same thing as Telecom.' Even though common carrier comes straight from maritime law and BigTech is more like Telecom than Telecom is maritime.
In the case of public function and state actors elections are the quenticencial example from Smith v. Allwright 1944.
"You are always free to criticize an election. What you cannot do is, with actual malice (per NYT v. Sullivan) state deliberate false facts about someone or some company that is designed to harm their reputation. That's wholly different from "criticizing an election.""
Does this apply to secretary of states and their offices. Why hasn't any secretary of state or their office sued for libel? Oh that's right you and I both know such a suit would be tossed for a 1st Amendment Violation and SLAPP violation.
In the case of the public function of the election Dominion is acting as the secretary of state (in most states). It has to be treated like the Secretary of State and enjoy no protections beyond that. If we dont the government will contract out any time it doesn't want to be limited by Constitutional constraints.
You are admitting its a loop-hole. Thank you for playing!
"However, if we're going on about claims that a gov't official cannot sue for libel, does that mean you agree that Devin Nunes' various lawsuits are not allowed?"
Weren't you cheering when most of his cases were tossed in part for that reason?
Why don't you ask me if I support the government outsourcing torture to private military contractors? No I don't think Nunes has a leg to stand on for any criticism of his office.
Thank you for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You make ridiculous arguments like water is wet even though it can be frozen, and apples are different than oranges even though they are both fruits, and private entities carry out limited government functions of the government even though they aren't employed by the government directly.
This is you right now bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
As soon as I see the words "maritime law", I immediately flag the post and move on. These are the same idiots who think that a courtroom with an American flag that has gold fringe around the edge means that the court has no jurisdiction over them. Somehow they've tied, in their tiny minds, maritime law with gold fringe, which to them means an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Most of us know how to laugh silently, when we observe this happening, as the judge trots out the smack-down hammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
That's a big problem on a site called "TechDirt" because common carrier is maritime law. Google it genius.
Maritime law as applied to telecom. Now people like Mike who work in social media don't want the same law applied to them so they argue that social media isn't' enough like telecom to warrant it. But social media is far closer to telecom than telecom is to maritime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
No, maritime law has nothing to do with it. Maritime law, as the name suggests, solely applies to stuff that happens at sea or (at the very least) in relation to a seafaring vessel. If it happens on land and doesn’t involve a boat or ship or something, maritime law does not apply. Unless you’re going to claim that utilities like electric or water are at sea or involve seafaring vessels, you cannot plausibly argue that “common carrier” is an issue of maritime law as it relates to this particular issue.
Perhaps maritime law has its own treatment of “common carriers” or uses that term in some way, but there are many terms that appear in both maritime law and non-maritime law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck off, SovCit, your logic is no good here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Let’s pop a bubble; shall we?
Maritime law doesn’t exist.
There is no overreaching all encompassing grand law or laws.
Every state has its own individual laws.
From there treaties such as the insovereign oceans agreement of 1401 or the SEAEA free travel treaty of 1945.
There’s larger partnership treaties like those from NATO and and UN agreements.
In the US the first maritime law (1777) restricted landings.
Tariffs in 1810 created the first calls for Secession before the outbreak of war, in New England.
Maritime regulations combined with taxation lead a second round of Secession debates following the war of 1812.
The shipping act of 1916 gave US maritime law teeth.
But it’s still individual laws.
Ultimately: it’s all just individual laws.
As for common carrier transit?
It doesn’t apply to com law.
They are separate sets of regulation.
Let’s look at the ocean-com laws.
The wireless ship act?
From 1910 all this does is require that ships have wireless communications devices for off-shore use.
The 1913 international convention for safety of life at sea? Nope.
This set transmitter regulations and frequency use. But generally was about manning receivers.
We have the 1917 AAS rules but that was solely for the Army Air Service.
We have the 1940 signals agreement that was codified in 1945 as part of the United Nations early agreements but again it’s just signal use.
There’s hundreds of multi-national treaties that cover spectrum use between 1946 and today.
None of wish come close to any form of common carrier rules.
In fact: outside of any individual state (country) law there is no international protection of communication. You could sail out to the middle of the ocean and run a radio broadcast (pirate radio) with near impunity. On the same commercial frequency as any other stations.
So unless you can find a in treaty or a multinational agreement (EU/SEA/Etc) and link it: your premise is dead.
I won’t say such a rule doesn’t exist but I can’t find anything close to common carrier requirements for communication in transit law.
My guess is you consider the transport law (common carrier) to just extend to any form of movement you wish. Mainly because the Tel Act of 1996 but I suggest you read the law. It clearly states that it is using like terms, not amending oceanic law.
I can understand how the poorly put together Wikipedia page could confuse a less informed person. Dig through the talk archives for the discussion to split the article and you’ll find a lengthy discussion I was part of there regarding the miscategorisation of communications law under the maritime heading. The terminology in com law dates back to the early 1930s but it was always in comparison to idea, not part of, maritime law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Let’s pop a bubble; shall we?
Maritime law doesn’t exist.
There is no overreaching all encompassing grand law or laws.
Every state has its own individual laws.
From there treaties such as the insovereign oceans agreement of 1401 or the SEAEA free travel treaty of 1945.
There’s larger partnership treaties like those from NATO and and UN agreements.
In the US the first maritime law (1777) restricted landings.
Tariffs in 1810 created the first calls for Secession before the outbreak of war, in New England.
Maritime regulations combined with taxation lead a second round of Secession debates following the war of 1812.
The shipping act of 1916 gave US maritime law teeth.
But it’s still individual laws.
Ultimately: it’s all just individual laws.
As for common carrier transit?
It doesn’t apply to com law.
They are separate sets of regulation.
Let’s look at the ocean-com laws.
The wireless ship act?
From 1910 all this does is require that ships have wireless communications devices for off-shore use.
The 1913 international convention for safety of life at sea? Nope.
This set transmitter regulations and frequency use. But generally was about manning receivers.
We have the 1917 AAS rules but that was solely for the Army Air Service.
We have the 1940 signals agreement that was codified in 1945 as part of the United Nations early agreements but again it’s just signal use.
There’s hundreds of multi-national treaties that cover spectrum use between 1946 and today.
None of wish come close to any form of common carrier rules.
In fact: outside of any individual state (country) law there is no international protection of communication. You could sail out to the middle of the ocean and run a radio broadcast (pirate radio) with near impunity. On the same commercial frequency as any other stations.
So unless you can find a in treaty or a multinational agreement (EU/SEA/Etc) and link it: your premise is dead.
I won’t say such a rule doesn’t exist but I can’t find anything close to common carrier requirements for communication in transit law.
My guess is you consider the transport law (common carrier) to just extend to any form of movement you wish. Mainly because the Tel Act of 1996 but I suggest you read the law. It clearly states that it is using like terms, not amending oceanic law.
I can understand how the poorly put together Wikipedia page could confuse a less informed person. Dig through the talk archives for the discussion to split the article and you’ll find a lengthy discussion I was part of there regarding the miscategorisation of communications law under the maritime heading. The terminology in com law dates back to the early 1930s but it was always in comparison to idea, not part of, maritime law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
That is one of the dumbest things I've read. Common carrier as it relates to maritime law has nothing to do with radio and other communication. Its a ship to the public for a fee, and free of most bias. This concept was later extended to ground based transportation, and later to communications.
Its a frame work you moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sorry, Chozen, but “nuh-uh to your uh=huh” isn’t enough to overcome Lostcause’s breakdown of your SovCit bullshit. When even they can credibly rip your shit apart, you’re done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
“ Common carrier as it relates to maritime law has nothing to do with radio and other communication.”
That’s my point. Telecommunications use of a premise for a different set of actions doesn’t make it maritime law. Or even based in maritime law.
In fact, the use in maritime transport comes from land transport. Common carrier is derived from communis pax nuntius. The senatorial law that kept Roman forces from intercepting non-military messengers. It translates as peace of the common message. That itself is an early form of government grant to privacy.
The law was a well documented failure but hey, they tried.
The point of the law was to allow messaging from foreign legatus (or diplomats) to reach the senate.
It was primarily used to protect Greek messengers (and they responded in kind) during 600 years of on and off war.
You stated that common carrier had its roots in maritime law. But a bit more historical study shows it has its roots in the ‘laws of war’. And that was by land, not sea. And, actually can be dated back to the Median rules of banner. (Which continues today in the use of the white flag, the cross or crescent in red, etc).
And from that you can deduce that maritime law on “common carrier” actually had its roots in protection of communications.
Mind you those laws didn’t stop anyone from charging ‘reasonable’ tolling, which was common. Only regulating that, in the case or Rome, that the senate supplied a grant of travel to a messenger and that no standardised toll could be raised due to the messenger carrying enough to pay fees across the whole of the journey.
History is fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
communis pax nuntius
Common peace diplomats. Its the basis diplomatic immunity not common carrier.
Under roman law diplomats were unassailable even during times of war,. That has nothing to do with common carrier.
Stop spinning its pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither does maritime law, but that clearly hasn’t stopped you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
… and they call me lostcause. 🤦♂️
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
“ Common peace diplomats”
No, ‘peace for the common diplomat’, meaning non-military messengers.
Latin is a language of nuance.
The translator will usual miss context in Latin, especially with such a short source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
What you originally said.
"In fact, the use in maritime transport comes from land transport. Common carrier is derived from communis pax nuntius. The senatorial law that kept Roman forces from intercepting non-military messengers. It translates as peace of the common message. That itself is an early form of government grant to privacy."
Now what you are saying
"No, ‘peace for the common diplomat’, meaning non-military messengers."
Meaning diplomatic immunity. Nothing to do with common carrier law. You lied. You tried to say that "communis pax nuntius" was for any messenger.
While nuntius can be translated as message, in this concept it means diplomats or envoys.
You also said that it begins in Rome which is also a lie. Herodotus called the killing of the Persian diplomats by the Athenians(not the Spartans) a crime. The truth is we don't know when diplomatic immunity began. All we know is that from our earliest history it already existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop H
The first and second quote are in agreement.
Unlike kobiki you and I don’t often disagree but this is one place where you should tuck your tail.
My agnostic study of religion has led me to study Roman and Egyptian law extensively. I’m level 2 fluent in Latin. You’re wrong here. There’s no discussion.
The regulations allowed free transport of any message by any person outside of military communique. Over land.
Common =civilian. Specifically non-military.
When Greece extended there version to sea travel Rome matched it.
Over time the 4 North African states implemented similar matching laws.
Peace for the carrier is not a mystery. It’s foundation is in the 947bce agreement of the four Peninsular kingdoms.
The laws were all always about protection of any communication that was not specifically military commands.
You’re not going to squirm your way to a “but…” on this. I have spent 25 years studying the effect of religion on law.
O own and have read the complete church fathers printing. Both nicene and anti-nicene. Much of it is discussion of how Christian doctrine was shaped by Roman law but it goes into aspects of culture.
communis pax nuntius Is quoted by over 30 different writers as helping early Christianity spread.
Quite while your behind. I like having you around. But I can quickly destroy your your presentation on this subject.
I really don’t want to.
Just admit you’re premise is based on a very narrow set of interpretations and move on.
Don’t make me destroy the idea of a trump support when it isn’t necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Correct. Note that that includes telephone and broadband, and public utilities are also unrelated to maritime law. Again, just because two completely unrelated bodies of law use the same term doesn’t mean that they use it the same way. Maritime law has no precedential value regarding non-maritime law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
"Correct. Note that that includes telephone and broadband, and public utilities are also unrelated to maritime law. Again, just because two completely unrelated bodies of law use the same term doesn’t mean that they use it the same way. Maritime law has no precedential value regarding non-maritime law."
They are not unrelated. We made the decision to treat telecommunications the same way we treat shipping.
You have to carry without bias. It was an existing legal framework that worked well and has worked well for telecom.
Whether your a carrying goods and people across bodies of water or you are carrying electronic communications across wire and air the same legal framework works and has worked very well for both.
This is not a hard concept. Its only difficult for Mike's four cronies who fight extension of common carrier to social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let’s say you could get social media relegated to “common carrier” status. I have a few questions for you about that:
How would you define “social media” for the purposes of this change?
How many social media sites/services would be affected by this change?
If you have plans for limiting common carrier status to “large services”, how would you define the size of services to which such status would apply?
How would you make sure this change doesn’t allow trolls/spammers/other kinds of online ne’er-do-wells who would flood those services with bullshit to…well, flood those services with bullshit?
How would you reconcile the compelled-by-law hosting of all legally protected third-party content on privately owned sites/services with the right of association, for both persons and corporations, that is protected by law under the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How would you define “social media” for the purposes of this change?
How many social media sites/services would be affected by this change?
If you have plans for limiting common carrier status to “large services”, how would you define the size of services to which such status would apply?
How would you make sure this change doesn’t allow trolls/spammers/other kinds of online ne’er-do-wells who would flood those services with bullshit to…well, flood those services with bullshit?"
How would you reconcile the compelled-by-law hosting of all legally protected third-party content on privately owned sites/services with the right of association, for both persons and corporations, that is protected by law under the First Amendment?
Finally, and most importantly: Do you truly believe the government should have the absolute legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host—even (and especially) if you’re the owner/operator of such a service?"
How do I limit text telling me that a local credit union account is about to be canceled and they need by SS#?
Shut up! These issues exist with all communication and are not unique to social media.
The bigger question is why do you not support equal protection under the law. Why should a small cell provider have to jump through more regulatory hoops than Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because cell phone service is a utility and Facebook isn’t. How are you so bad at this.
Also wow, way to dodge all those questions I asked. Even Lostcause isn’t that much of a coward. They’re a dumbass, to be sure—but they’re not a coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Utility does not matter.
Taxis are not a utility. Ships are not a utility. Television is not a utility. Something does not have to be a utility to be treated as a common carrier. Try again genius!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as soon as you can present a rationale for Facebook being a common carrier that can’t be circumvented by a statement such as “Facebook could shut down tomorrow and the government wouldn’t be able to do shit about it”, you let me know, mm’kay? Until then, go pound sand with the rest of your shithead SovCit pals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"How many social media sites/services would be affected by this change?"
That depends on how you define "social media". Start by defining your terms, and others will have an easier time discussing the actual issues under those terms.
"Why should a small cell provider have to jump through more regulatory hoops than Facebook?"
Because they're in totally separate industries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
You're the stupid idiot that thinks a public house is public housing and that trespassing laws do not exist.
Maybe you should sit down and let the adults speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
Dude, you're such an idiot you think a public house is the same as public housing, and that trespassing does not exist as law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
"Dominion has zero right to file libel suits related to criticism of how it carried out a public function."
Damn son you better tell that to tell all the judges involved before they do something silly and rule Dominion's cases can proceed and possibly win.
Oh wait that already happened?
Nevermind then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
In carrying out a public function Dominion is acting as the government should have zero private protection.
So then they would qualify for public protection then? Damn, if we let you try and run shit, taxpayers are gonna be on the hook to pay for both sides of this argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
No the case would just be thrown out like Blackwatter's case was back during the Iraq war. Blackwatter endured much more libel from much more mainstream sources back in the 00s. Than Dominion is today. But when they tried to sue of the libel they didn't even gat passed the 4th circuit.
Government contracts are big guaranteed money, the government is never going to file a chapter 11 and leave the contractor up @%% creek. Plenty of contractors will be and are willing to take the negatives that come with those contracts.
The Dominion case is a very good case for the SCOTUS to finally lay down the law on contractors carrying out public functions. Not just for dominion but because we also have HSS openly discussing using contractors to carry out surveillance for the explication purpose to avoid constitutional constraint. The "contractor" issue needs to be put to rest by the SCOTUS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment Loop Hole
You're a stupid idiot, why won't you just admit you have zero knowledge of the law. Mr. public housing who doesn't understand trespassing laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good news, republicans! The top minds of the right are finally going to get their day in court where they can present all the evidence they have for election fraud! It's not like they took baseless claims that originated on 4Chan and Reddit and presented them as fact to try and rile up the base and appease an orange tinted manchild, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diebold, anyone?
I'm old enough to remember when the CEO of Diebold, the company who made election machines in the '00s, promised to deliver Ohio for Bush in 2004.
Funny how all these "Stop the Steal" clowns had nothing to say back then.
https://boingboing.net/2004/11/03/quote-of-the-day-die.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Diebold, anyone?
Not to mention that Kerry didn't have his followers sack the capitol like on January 6.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jonathan Johnson is the CEO of Overstock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And your point is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps that the headline "Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation" implies it's the current head being sued?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was just thinking last night that Mike Lindell's continuing use of standard grifter tactics -- promising that he has definitive proof and then bait-and-switching at the last minute, every. fucking. time -- is really going to hurt him in court. His defense is that it's not defamation because he sincerely believes what he's saying is true; the plaintiff's argument is that he knows he's lying and it's a scheme to make money. And he's really helping them out by going out there every day and engaging in classic con-artist behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's basically his pillow business as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
picture of Dave Chapell as Rick James
Cocaine!! It's a hell of a drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's been awhile since I've seen that episode, but I'm pretty sure the guy saying "cocaine's a hell of a drug" was the real Rick James.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
True, actually. Had not even consciously thought of it until you mentioned it, but yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The creater of a lie
Isnt the one that should spread it. Because if he is caught, knowing its a lie, can get them in trouble.
He can spread the lie, and make it more juicy and Succulent, And more will spread the lie, Not understanding its a lie, makes it an Opinion.
He told me
They said
It was on TV
But the one that created the lie, can never admit they started it. He has to point to something else, to pass the buck to some innocent, and the Circle keeps going around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine that, lying has consequences
While I've no doubt they'll just use this to fund-raise and grift from the gullible fools still buying into the stolen election lie it is nice to see that it's not all sunshine and profits for scumbags like that, as I'm sure that being dragged to court like this is going to be all sorts of expensive and stressful even before factoring in the hefty financial penalties that Dominion is sure to ask for and that they might have to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Imagine that, lying has consequences
You must be a paid troll to make such statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Imagine that, lying has consequences
Truly a masterfully written counter, your extensive explanations showing why my comment is that of a 'paid troll' have shown me the error of my ways and convinced me to no longer mock the grifters and sore loses undermining trust in the election system for personal gain and the fools who believe them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Imagine that, lying has consequences
[Lostinlodos-level projection of facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Imagine that, lying has consequences
i'm sorry, are you talking to yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Imagine that, lying has consequences
fund-raise and grift from the gullible fools... all sorts of expensive
Well, I'm sure that a judgement of $1.5 Billion in Dominion's favour won't hurt the defendants one bit, because each one of Trump's "75 million" voters will happily stump up $20 per person without batting an eyelid, such is their trust in the worth of their cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Imagine that, lying has consequences
Quite possible, they certainly are that stupid and easy to con.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What has making sense to do with business?
It makes a whole lot of money. Making sense is a target for an enlightened kingdom, not for a mercenary democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A prime example of two of my favorite quotations.
Arrogance and stupidity in one package.
How efficient of them.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Dominions side, their side, and the truth.
I would not be surprised if, through some miraculous event, that it is revealed both sides were lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if Dominion will call participants to Lindell's recent PCAP conference... I want to say within the last 2 or 3 weeks, I remember reading a twitter thread about how Lindell had PCAPs from the election, but the guy that had them "suddenly had a stroke and could not provide them". Maybe Ken can help me out here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's worth noting - the guy who "had them" is named Dennis Montgomery. He is most famous for massive fraud, including defrauding the federal government with software that claimed to predict terrorist activity, but after numerous instances of cancelled flights and orange alerts it was revealed that the software did nothing of the kind of things it was claimed to do. An example of what was reported is here: https://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/28/the_man_who_conned_the_pentagon
This can't be stressed enough - the primary source of the claims that Lindell has been making is a known con artist who has previously defrauded the government with fake data. This is why even the people he employed specifically to go over the data did not find evidence of fraud - there was none, except in the claims of someone who saw another easy mark in his long career of being a fraud himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Byrne was not hoodwinked by the ex-con or the conspiracy-theorists-for-hire. He is far too intelligent to buy the nonsense...
Well, he literally made shit up himself, ahead of time, and promoted it ceaselessly, so no. Also, this is the same asshat who for years sock-puppeted fora and reviews sites to promote his company and sling mud at his competition. He knows what he's doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine lines
Two things are bound to com out of this.
There’s a very fine line between inadequate and dangerous.
1) I have yet to see any actual evidence D’s machines were hacked.
2) they are rather easy to hack based on internet sources including a dump of firmware as a torrent file.
Sometimes it’s best to walk away when your still standing. They’ll likely win but the collateral damage? I’m not sure they’ll survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, see, here’s the thing: Even if the machines are easy to hack, no one has presented evidence that they were hooked up to the Internet in a way that would’ve let them be hacked—and, as you said, no one has even shown that they’ve been hacked regardless of Internet access. The parties being sued by Dominion are on the hook for proving their claims true; if they have the evidence, now would be the time for them to present it.
And judging by how Mike Lindell’s “this will put Trump back in office” cyber-symposium crashed and burned last week, Dominion has a far higher chance of winning its cases than you seem to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Dominion has a far higher chance of winning its cases than you seem to think.“
“ They’ll likely win but the collateral damage? I’m not sure they’ll survive.”
I have no doubt they win the case. I question if putting their company in a position where answers become yes or no, is wise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I'm sure they're absolutely terrified about the public learning about the bamboo in the machines and how the company was run by Hugo Scheveze or whoever the hell it was...
Of the two sides in court I'm thinking that it's the cranks pushing the stolen election lie who have a hell of a lot more to worry about when speaking under perjury as if past cases are any indication they'll either develop an amazing case of forgetfulness('I had the evidence not five seconds ago...') or break out the 'I'm crazy so no-one would ever take me seriously' defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Death to that sort of "wisdom", say i.
It's best all around for the public if 1) they win and 2) have to also design better security due to public exposure.
Dominion's corporate survival is way down my list of things to care about, but yeah i guess shareholders might get a bit pissy if things are exposed and go sideways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly.
I’m not talking about conspiracy bull. I’m talking about the real world issues.
The up side is this will make the company acknowledge the real concerns and fix them. Like—insecure ports. Flawed firmware. Remote execution.
Just because they weren’t hacked isn’t grounds to ignore the potential.
The question is how much more do we not know… and can the company survive.
This is the equivalent of ‘couldn’t be the bank robber because I was chopping up my husband’ level of falling on your sword.
I question not the motivation, but the cost of being right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would assume they aren’t. That said: What the fuck have the cranks offered in terms of highlighting unknown vulnerabilities that are actually based in fact?
What makes you think it can’t? The only “scandal” here belongs to the cranks who are lying about Dominion. The company itself, from all I’ve seen, has the complete upper hand in this nonsense.
There is no real “cost” if the cranks are wrong—and they are. Whatever Dominion pays in legal fees will be more than made up by any cash reward (or cash settlement), and only the cranks will keep believing Chinese bamboo makers hacked the election with special thermometers designed to slip pre-filled paper ballots into the hands of the reptile people who secretly rig all U.S. elections. Or, y’know, whatever they happen to believe this week.
Listen, I sincerely despise the idea of defending corporations. They’d sooner kill me and turn my body into kindling than return the favor. But on every level except the moral one, Dominion is in the right. (Morally, I’d call this a wash, but that’s my anti-corporatism talking.) That you seem to think otherwise makes me think you’re not nearly as against the cranks as you profess to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’m looking outside the politics on this one.
And here’s what I gather:
Someone released a firmware
/software dump that claims to be from this company and claims to be authentic.
Included is a man file.
Along with magnet searches the file can be found at salted7fpnlaguiq.
There’s a bit of discussion with it.
Some brave people downloaded the torrent and claim it shows major software security flaws.
I make no claim as to the factuality of it. But I’ll take the word of reliable white and grey hat groups over any politician every day of the week.
Are they end of life security issues? No.
But any issue in a machine to vote should be fixed. And that’s going to take work-hours to do so.
The point I’m making is they have admitted to some issues. There are more realistic issues reported by those in CS.
What’s to stop any of the defence from mandating an audit to prove the claim and not find b c d and e along the way.
And what judge, no matter how partisan, is going to hide such secondary findings with a gag order.
See where my thought process goes here.
Has nothing to do rectal probes that send sonic waves to bamboo cards. Or whatever other bull the far right puts out.
When you look at computing there’s always weakness and do you really want to open yourself to such issues being dragged into the spotlight?
This really doesn’t seem wise to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As was pointed out in a different comment: Dominion’s security practices aren’t the direct subject of these lawsuits—the lies about those practices propagated by the cranks and grifters being sued are. Dominion can admit its machines have security flaws without hurting its case—because if the cranks want to hurt Dominion here, they have to prove their lies aren’t lies.
Again: Do you really think Dominion would be fighting to have its day in court against the cranks if the company was afraid of discovery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’m not the one who said they wouldn’t survive discovery. I actually think they have a chance.
I just question how big a beating they’ll take in doing this.
Maybe they figure a win would be big enough to pay to fix anything exposed? I don’t know.
Just appears to me to not be the wisest move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
what's going to be exposed by a bunch of lying assholes that hasn't already been exposed by people who actually know what they're doing in the field of election security?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Likely nothing. But your thinking in political terms and not CIS. Go digging in ANY hardware or software and something is bound to come up.
If the security researchers are correct they may have a large problem they are even workin To correct (or not) privately.
Which would likely come out in the open if true. Which would start a whole new round of “told you so” from the far right.
I don’t trust the system at all. Be it unfilled dots for ocr, chats for punches, flip votes. I’ve seen the latter two with my own eyes in my own hands.
Both are easily fixable by the voter. With care.
But I’ve been in tech long enough to know there’s no such thing as totally secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if this were to happen—and given the competency of the cranks being sued, that seems a longshot at best—so what? Dominion machines should be tested and bugs should be made known to Dominion so said bugs can be patched.
Then stop voting.
FYI: Giuliani, Newsmax, etc. aren’t being sued for saying “Dominion machines aren’t totally secure”. They’re being sued for saying “Dominion used insecure machines as part of an international plot to steal the 2020 election”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Dominion machines should be tested and bugs should be made known to Dominion so said bugs can be patched.”
To Dominion, yes. In a public forum…?
I’m one of theirs who thinks there should be an opportunity for fixing bugs before public disclosure.
“Then stop voting”
But it’s not just a right, it’s a duty.
“FYI”
I don’t really care about why they’re suing nor who wins.
I only question if this is the most wise action for the company to take. They believe so. It’s not the decision I would have made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again: This assumes the people/companies being sued have people on their side who can find those bugs. Given the lack of evidence presented by Mike Lindell’s “we’re putting Trump back in office” symposium—and how one of his hand-picked experts said the “evidence” displayed there was bullshit—I wouldn’t count on that.
But you don’t trust the system. Why bother voting if you don’t trust the system?
The fact that you have all but said you want Dominion to drop the lawsuits says otherwise.
And that’s why you’re in an internet slapfight with me instead of running a billion-dollar corporation. You’re not as smart as you think you are, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ Why bother voting if you don’t trust the system”
I hope some day ballot receipts will be normal.
I’m lucky enough to be in a district that uses a viable (verify your votes) roll that shows what the computer recorded. The current system is very sloppy. But it’s my duty as a citizen to vote. So I do.
“ The fact that you have all but said you want Dominion to drop the lawsuits says otherwise.”
Where? When?
All I did was point out this may bite them in the arse. Personally, if it does, at least the focus will be on fixing any issues found.
I have no vested interest in either side.
“ And that’s why you’re in an internet slapfight with me”
Not sure why your fighting. I was having a conversation.
“ instead of running a billion-dollar corporation”
Are you? Honestly I wouldn’t want to. I like my business the way it is. No directors, no investors, no doing what stock holders say. We make decisions by a phone call or text message. Not a quarterly vote.
“You’re not as smart as you think you are, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.“
Interesting you keep going back to this idea. I didn’t claim to be an expert. Or even knowledgeable in this category.
All I said was; I wonder if this will come back to haunt them (Dominion).
Stop saying I said something I didn’t.
What I said from the first post was:
“ I have no doubt they win the case.”
And that I wonder just how many vulnerabilities will be found.
Maybe everyone is correct and it’s just the ones they already addressed (btw exposed ports is still a problem regardless of likelihood of abuse).
If so: great. If not, whoops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are. Maybe not on every machine, but on enough machines that it’s not some one-county-in-the-entire-country rarity or some shit.
And you keep pointing it out and questioning whether it was a wise decision to sue a bunch of grifting liars who lie and grift and have fucked around too long without finding out. You’re all but saying that Dominion should drop the suits even though it’s clearly not afraid of discovery—which says more about you (and which side you seem to support in this courtroom pitfight) than it does about Dominion.
I’m Internet slapfighting with a pissant like you. Do you think I am?
And yet you’re acting like you’re smarter than the team of Dominion lawyers by questioning the decision to continue the lawsuits Dominion itself filed. Do you really fucking think they’d file the lawsuits if they were afraid of discovery?
You don’t doubt they’ll win, but you doubt whether they should even have filed the lawsuits. You seem to believe their legal team knows what they’re doing, but you also seem to believe they’re making a mistake by opening Dominion up to discovery. Yeah, you said Dominion will likely win the case—and everything you’ve said about Dominion after that has been the equivalent of one long “but”. The only reason to express this much doubt in re: the decisions from Dominion is to dogwhistle support for the people/companies being sued.
For fuck’s sake, man, you have me defending a corporation like Dominion from an ignorant asshole like you. You’re not as slick as you think you are, you wannabe Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“You’re all but saying that Dominion should drop the suits”
I said no such thing.
“ and which side you seem to support in this courtroom pitfight”
Again, don’t care. I don’t even know exactly who they’re suing all together. The article has two news companies and one person.
But you (plural) keep bringing up Rudi et al.
“ And yet you’re acting like you’re smarter than the team of Dominion lawyers”
You’ve never questioned a lawsuit in your entire life?
“ Do you really fucking think they’d file the lawsuits if they were afraid of discovery?”
I didn’t say they were afraid of discovery. Quite the opposite, I wondered by implication if they should be.
“ but you doubt whether they should even have filed the lawsuits”
Correct.
“ The only reason to express this much doubt”
Is a true wondering if they know what they’re doing.
I never heard of Newsmax before this article. Nor have I ever heard of Jonathan Johnson. Had to Wikipedia him. Guess he ran for something In Utah.
Once again you jump to conclusions based on pre-conceived ideas a/b politics.
My questioning is non-political. It’s security. I’m wondering if it’s wise to have a public trial about voting security where not just (likely) inaccurate information is discussed but factual security issues as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Again, don’t care. I don’t even know exactly who they’re suing all together. The article has two news companies and one person.
But you (plural) keep bringing up Rudi et al"
If you bothered to keep up with factual information, you'd know that the main 3 targets of Dominion's lawsuits are Mike Lindell, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. People here keep bringing the latter up because it's verifiable documented fact that he's being sued for his lies.
"I never heard of Newsmax before this article."
It's weird that you never seem to have heard of the sources of the fictions you parrot on a regular basis, isn't it? Especially the ones that have been confirmed in court to employ Russian propaganda agents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny, how you jump to conclusions based on questions and comments that have no direct requirements for a pre-decided opinion.
I parrot nothing. You intentionally, and constintly, ignore my textual statements and immediately lump me into some class you believe I belong to. I know you like your classing (ocd?) but situations such as this would make sense to you if you didn’t judge everything in life on tiny-factor preconceived notions.
This article is a prime example. I ponder the the forethought in the lawsuits and you decide to claim I said they should drop it. And that I support stop the steal. Neither of which are accurate.
It’s well documented I have Comcast from the HBOMax and cable discussions: which doesn’t receive OAN. So what little I get on their opinion is quotes from BB or NYT. Few and far between.
I assume they’re suing the news company and not the organic noodle franchise restaurants.
I initially thought newsmax was a typo for Newsweek.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether you know it or not, you parrot the talking points of right-wing cranks—including the ones being sued by Dominion. On top of that, you’ve bent so far backwards to defend Trump and his administration in the past that even Cirque du Soleil is impressed. We’re only categorizing your statements based on how they read to people who are well-versed in reading right-wing crankery (including the right-wing dogwhistles you don’t think exist). Don’t like it? Stop trying to sound like you’re looking for an on-air role at OAN.
Yes, it must be OCD, because anyone who does categorization of people into groups based on what they say and do must have a mental disease or defect~.
(By the by? Saying ableist bullshit is yet another way you come off as a right-wing dipshit.)
You seem to think Dominion higher-ups hadn’t considered the same issues as you did, Mr. Dunning-Kruger. I can assure you that they have—and so have the company lawyers. They wouldn’t have filed the lawsuits, or fought to keep them alive, if they were as afraid of discovery as you seem to think they should be.
You’ve been touting your support for Trump for a while now. As far as I can recall, you’ve never explicitly and unequivocally denounced the “Stop the Steal” movement and the lies that sprang forth from it. Feel free to do that now…if you’ve finally developed the testicular fortitude necessary to deny your Dear Leader his alternative facts, that is.
For someone who wants to act like they know a lot of shit about politics and political media, you’re not doing a good job at convincing us of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Dominion higher-ups hadn’t considered the same issues as you did“
No, I questioned the intelligence of going forward. Something you like to do every time a Republican brings a lawsuit.
“ As far as I can recall,”
You recall incorrectly.
I never blamed fraud. I’ve always blamed biased media reporting.
Trump’s cries of fraud didn’t help the country post elections or now.
Trump never was a Dear Leader to me. He was the better choice than the alternative.
“ For someone who wants to act like they know a lot of shit about politics and political media”
I don’t care about the fringe of either party. I don’t seek out their ideas. They don’t represent the party proper.
You have a bit of an obsession in finding what the far right says and painting that to be the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you.
As for ocd, I have a light bit of it myself. I group too, so I call it as I see it. I just make random groupings though. I’m not good for organising it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I typically do that when the lawsuit is on shaky legal ground, which happens more often than not when right-wing cranks are involved. Dominion’s suits are on far more solid legal ground, so the only reason to “question[ ]the intelligence of going forward” in its cases is to instill doubts about how solid the cases are and make people consider that maybe the cranks have a point when they don’t. I promise you this: Dominion’s higher-ups and legal team(s) have considered every issue you’ve raised and more you haven’t even thought of. They wouldn’t have gone forward with the suits if they thought they were a bad idea. Stop trying to convince us otherwise; it’s not going to work.
Everything you’ve done to defend him and his administration says otherwise, but feel free to believe your alternative facts if it makes you feel better, you discount-store Sean Spicer.
No, I don’t. But I recognize right-wing crankery when I see it, and you’ve been parroting their shit since I can first remember seeing/replying to your posts. Whether you realize that—or care about that—is your problem, not mine.
Unless it’s been clinically diagnosed: No, you don’t. Stop making light of an actual mental illness, you ableist dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes clinically diagnosed.
More accurately PABT with mild OCD tendencies.
So I continue to call it as I see it.
It’s not an illness, it’s a cognitive deviation. illnesses can be cured.
“They wouldn’t have gone forward with the suits if they thought they were a bad idea.”
I’m sure they wouldn’t. Doesn’t mean I agree.
Again I’m against publicly disclosing computer errors until after a company has time to fix them.
Combined with I don’t believe any part of any court case should ever be closed to the public for any reason. So I have problems with suites like this. Which have no public good to them and are a risk to the same public.
“Stop trying to convince us otherwise; it’s not going to work.”
Not trying to.
It’s pointless.
“Everything you’ve done to defend him and his administration”
I’m just unwilling to pretend there are hidden conspiracy messages in every statement.
I’m against conflation of separate events as a single moment. And I’m absolutely against lying about what a person actually says when the record is available.
I don’t agree with all of Trump’s decisions. Just enough to not regret my choice. I still think he was twice the better choice.
“and you’ve been parroting their shit”
And you’ve yet to point out anywhere where I have. You claim I imply things I don’t because you don’t take posts at face value. But you have never shown a single point of me agreeing with the far right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again: Dominion wouldn’t have brought these lawsuits if any of the higher-ups/legal beagles thought those suits would result in the kind of consequences you want us to believe will happen. While the kind of exposure you speak of is possible—nothing’s perfect, after all—the chances of it happening have to be relatively low for Dominion to keep the suits alive. To put it bluntly, Dominion isn’t backing down because its cost/benefit analysis is far more informed than yours.
And I haven’t said or done anything to even imply such a thing. But if you plan to keep denying the existence of coded language/political dogwhistles by insulting people who accept and understand that such speech exists, don’t be surprised when commenters here treat you like someone who literally can’t grasp the concept of “usage can differ from actual meaning” would work.
Yes, yes, you think all the insurrectionists collectively had the exact same idea to march to the Capitol in a magical moment of lucidity that happened independently from the speech Trump gave about patriots and stopping the steal and how his supporters needed to protect American democracy mere minutes before the insurrection began. We get it.
So am I. But I’ve never once lied about anything Trump said. Have I used hyperbolic paraphrasing? Sure. But when I deem it necessary to quote the man directly, I’ve done exactly that. (And I fucking hate quoting him because it means I have to read shit he said or wrote. I make myself suffer to achieve that accuracy, you son of a bitch.) That I see subtext where you see literal text is your issue; I can’t help you understand how a word’s meaning to a given audience can be changed by its usage in a given context.
I was right—you lack the moral courage to denounce your Dear Leader for the authoritarian asshole he really is. If Biden was even half as bad as Trump, I’d already be doing that. How far backwards are you willing to bend for him, man? How much bullshit are you really willing to overlook for the sake of voting a fascist into office?
Your problem is that you take literally everything literally. I can’t educate you on how subtext works in political speech because you’re seemingly incapable of understanding even the idea of subtext. That’s not my problem to solve, and I’ll be god-fucking-damned if you think I need to shoulder that impossible responsibility.
You literally said earlier in your comment that “I still think [Trump] was twice the better choice”. The far right agrees with you on that (albeit maybe not for the same reasons). Hell, every time you’re confronted with criticism of Donald Trump’s time in office, you deflect and downplay with a fervor and stubbornness that only the far right can outmatch.
You can’t admit that he tried to do away with Obamacare without having a plan to replace it; you always go “it was repeal-and-replace” while ignoring how he never had “replace” ready at any point in his presidency. You can’t admit that he implied household disinfectants were a possible treatment for COVID; you always go “he never actually said ‘drink bleach’ ” and ignore the context in which he made his comments. (Again: Subtext and context are concepts you seem unable to comprehend.) You can’t admit that he made any big fuck-ups—only small ones—and any big fuck-ups that I or others point out are either the fault of someone else or “not that big a deal”.
You sound like an alt-right dipshit—unknowingly or otherwise—because like many of those dipshits, you are literally incapable of meaningfully criticizing the four-year American nightmare that was the presidency of Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“ because its cost/benefit analysis is far more informed than yours”
Yep, all about the money from someone who said bad things.
Lol.
“ can’t grasp”
I get it. And there’s likely som people out there that actually using stuff on that liberal list in such a way.
Feel free to show evidence I have.
“Yes, yes, you think all the insurrectionists “
I was referring to well disproven bleach nonsense.
As for the riot in the capital, that thanks to evidence you provided (among others) that wasn’t generally linked to by news sites, left or right, I have reason to believe a small minority may have had intentions beyond being heard.
But I never did support them at any point. I’ve consistently called for them to be arrested for the actual crimes they committed.
“But I’ve never once lied about anything Trump said.”
Bleach.
Positive statements about white supremacy.
“that accuracy, you son of a bitch.) That I see subtext where you see literal text is your issue;”
Like I said. I’m a literalist. I take things at face value. I don’t live in a world always worrying about what something may mean other than what was said.
You’ll never convince me anyone thought anything other than what their public statements and actions show.
“I was right—you lack the moral courage “
Neither one of us know what Clinton would have done. I am content on that choice.
How’s the Biden situation working out? We have over 100k immigrants with no tracking or documentation no in the country. Generally unvetted.
We have a migration crisis at the border.
After completely dismantling all military preparations for our withdrawal from Afghanistan put in place by Trump’s administration we now have the biggest military disaster in our history.
I remind you I took your list step by step in another post. I disagreed with trumps actions more than agreed. You conveniently didn’t follow up.
“you take literally everything literally.”
Yes. Yes I do.
Maybe my constant stating that I say what I mean and don’t use “subtext” would be enough for you to eventually stop saying I mean something I didn’t say.
“The far right agrees with you “
Yes, they, the tiny minority of Republicans, and an even smaller fraction of the nation, agree with me.
Try again, a little more specific since I forgot you like to split hairs.
You’ve never pointed out to a far right position I’ve supported.
“ Hell, every time you’re confronted with criticism of Donald Trump’s time in office”
Or maybe most of your complaints aren’t far anything? And represent half or more of the country?
Because you keep failing to the same three things.
Bleach, didn’t happen
Mask. I agree with you on the rhetoric, even if we have different opinions on the liberty aspect. Cause I’ve never once opposed the use of a mask.
And immigration. I support fences, laws, and walls.
Oh, and fine people. I a) don’t buy your ‘but he meant’ and b) 100% oppose anyone damaging any monuments.
Move them if you must. Don’t destroy them.
Those that destroy statues are no better I’m my eyes than the Christian fucks that burn books.
Art is art. History is history.
And one can admire a general’s military prowess without supporting their cause.
“Obamacare without having a plan to replace it”
I accept that he called for repeal and replace. That he’d sign a repeal alone is a down side. But you’ve brought that up before and I said the same thing.
See above: and I said he didn’t say inject, not drink. He said neither. The context is quite clear to anyone who listened to the discussion or read the whole paragraph.
I have plenty of criticism. Go back and look at the aforementioned lest we be partisan response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The list wouldn’t exist if conservatives didn’t actually use the language in the way they do. As satirical as the list is, like much satire, it is deeply rooted in the truth.
Did I say you did? (No. No, I did not.)
Yeah, uh…the “hang Mike Pence” chants weren’t some well-hidden secret for months after the fact. Pretty sure even MSNBC was playing footage of that shit as soon as it could.
Context.
I never said he made such statements. I said he avoided making unequivocal hardline denouncements of white supremacy and its adherents. And that’s true: Whenever asked to denounce groups like the Proud Boys, he either equated them to some other group (e.g., “very fine people on both sides”, mentioning the violence from “all sides”), offered a weak enough condemnation that even his cult of personality didn’t believe him, or—in regards to the Proud Boys themselves—told them to “stand back and stand by”. Donald Trump couldn’t risk losing the support of groups like those, even if he couldn’t openly accept their support, because losing that support meant losing votes.
Incidentally, the GOP is much the same way: While Republicans may denounce white supremacy, their actions—e.g., using loaded language to spread racist ideas, protecting Confederate monuments—speak louder than words to the racists. The GOP may not openly accept the support of white supremacists, sure…but they’re not actively trying to destroy the image of the party as a safe haven for those assholes, either. (Especially in the South.)
Then you either can’t or willingly refuse to understand the idea of dogwhistle politics, in which case your whining about people not being as literal-minded as you is both irrelevant and pathetic.
Irrelevant. Hillary Clinton was never president.
For the bit of good he’s done as president, the rest is frankly a shitshow. But at least he’s not a fascist like your Dear Leader and his authoritarian acolytes. (Always remember that you voted for an American fascist—twice.)
I’m no fan of Joe Biden as president. I knew he was going to be, at best, a middling centrist dipshit even before I cast my vote for him. (I would’ve preferred Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren. C’est la vie.) He and his administration could be doing a better job on a lot of areas, not the least of which is immigration. That said: I don’t regret my vote for him because…well, for starters, I have that privilege, but also because he isn’t trying to turn the United States into an authoritarian Christian theocracy. In no way I can think of is the Biden administration actively trying to intentionally worsen the state of the union. Compare that to Trump and his administration, which undid environmental regulations and broke ethics rules and stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama and attacked trans people and did many other things that tried to actively worsen the country—if not for everyone, then for the people conservatives thought were supposed to be harmed.
You can mean something other than what you say without actually trying. That’s how subtext works: Usage transforms the meaning of a word/phrase independently of any dictionary definition. The word “globalist” is largely seen by anyone who isn’t an anti-Semite as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle precisely because it’s been used as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle to that much of a degree. Hell, your precious insistence on “states’ rights” as a leading cause for the Confederacy is a dogwhistle—though you’ve already implied that you’re too ignorant to realize that.
Before you make your counterargument: Yes, it is possible that someone can see a dogwhistle in a word or phrase that isn’t intended by the speaker to be one. That said, plausible deniability is a key feature of political dogwhistles. That’s why a fair amount of people who are fucking tired of conservative bullshit are on what you might call a “heightened alert” for conservative dogwhistles—they’ve been trained by experience to expect it from conservatives more often than not.
Well, for starters: “I support fences, laws, and walls.”
You’re unwilling to confront even the idea that American became a hellscape for millions of people under the leadership (such as it was) of Donald Trump.
Of course you don’t, because you’ve done the mental gymnastics necessary to avoid the idea that he was referring to the actual white supremacists who were the actual majority of the actual protestors who were actually protesting the proposed removal of monuments dedicated to a white supremacist nation-state.
Then put the statues in a museum. The only reason to have a statue honoring a Confederate in a public place is to honor the cause upon which the Confederacy was born: white supremacy.
No, you…you really can’t separate the two. Such an approach whitewashes history by removing context. I mean, what the fuck is the point of celebrating their military prowess without reflecting on what they were using that prowess to accomplish? Doing that shit for Confederate generals would be little better than celebrating the prowess of Nazi generals without mentioning the cause for which the Nazis were fighting.
So do I. Your problem is that you’ve never been able to admit that Trump never had an actual replacement plan ready. You’re always going on about “repeal and replace” as if he did.
The fact that you’re this weak in your criticism of Trump’s lack of a replacement plan for the ACA is basically confirming everything I’ve said about you lacking the balls necessary to criticize Dear Leader.
No, what you kept saying what “it was always repeal-and-replace”, as if Trump had a replacement plan ready for when the ACA was (supposed to be) undone. He didn’t. His plan was always to repeal Obamacare and maybe get around to replacing it with something meaningful if he felt like doing that. (Spoilers: He didn’t and he never will.)
Yeah, it is: After someone else brought up the fact that household disinfectants (including bleach) can kill the COVID-19 virus on non-porous surfaces, Donald Trump pondered shortly thereafter about whether injecting people with such disinfectants could be a potential treatment for COVID-19, despite the fact that many of those disinfectants (including bleach) are toxic—often fatally so—to human beings.
That is what happened. That is a documented and verifiable fact; video and transcripts of that moment exist. Bitch about how people like me use exaggerated shorthand to cut to the chase of Trump’s suggestion all you want. The actuality of the moment is impossible for you to deny unless you really don’t understand the concepts of context and cause-and-effect.
No, you don’t. You have simple statements that don’t meaningfully address the criticisms of Donald Trump. I could tell you that Trump nominated a former oil lobbyist to be the Secretary of the Interior—a man who was also a key figure in rolling back protections of the Endangered Species Act—and you wouldn’t have shit to say about what that decision meant for environmental protections (several of which were rolled back during the Trump administration). You’d probably say “sucks, but not a big deal” or some shit.
When I say you don’t meaningfully criticize the Trump administration, that’s what I mean: You don’t, and you don’t seem willing to, engage with criticisms of Trump and his cronies on a substantive level. You’re not willing to dig deep into why the things he did might be problematic for anyone who isn’t a Trump supporter; you either deflect with whataboutism/partisan mockery or simply go “meh, not a big deal” and move on. Do you even care about the things Trump did in office that objectively made life worse for Americans—like, say, the trans military ban? Because if you did, you would engage with the criticisms and lean into understanding why people feel that way instead of dismissing those people as “ultra-libs” or “far left radicals” or whatever partisan insult you’re using this week.
I can understand why people are pissed at Biden for how his administration is handling immigration—on both sides of the aisle, might I add. I don’t think he’s doing a good job of it, either; no one in his administration seems to have a clear plan for how to control immigration while treating migrants and refugees with any kind of humanity. (Neither do I, but that speaks less to the complexity of the issue and more to my general ignorance of it. An immigration policy wonk, I am not.) But depite voting for Biden, I’m willing to step up and say that he shouldn’t be continuing the usage of the concentration camps at the southern border (or elsewhere in the U.S.). I’m willing to ask that he and his administration look at finding ways to both streamline the immigration/naturalization process and give Dreamers the full path to citizenship that they deserve. I’m willing to engage with the criticisms and use them to triangulate my position on Biden, on immigration, and on my political ideology in general.
(I’m also willing to say the U.S. should stop fucking around in Central and South America because that’s a big reason for immigration from those areas. But that transcends any given presidential administration.)
I’ve never once seen you do what I just did for Biden and immigration with any substantive criticism of Old 45 on any issue, inculding his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. That you’re either unwilling or unable to do that is your problem; I can’t and won’t solve it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I figured hang Mike pence to be the same as hang king George in the early 1770s.
A matter of the government not listening to the people.
But since others entered the capital that reference was lost on many, like you.
he avoided making unequivocal hardline denouncements of white supremacy
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-denounce-white-supremacy-biden-harris
But we can go a step further with your Charlotte protest. Where his direct dislike of the group at hand is well documented.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/27/joe-biden/biden-wrong-when-he-says-trump-hasnt-co ndemned-dav/
You keep conferring racism to monuments. Maybe, even if you disagree, you could try to understand not everyone thinks that way. Many just see it as monuments of history. Period.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/opinion/columns/2020/07/12/column-use-and-misuse-of-word -lsquofascismrsquo/113358736/
You, and the left in general keep using that word. And it’s misuse is a dilution of what millions dealt with in the 1930s.
If you wish to keep using that list maybe reply to the lengthy response I made to your itemised post.
You ignore that the majority polled are single issue voters.
I tend to have three and will give up on one for the other two.
Dog whistles. Sure. But when someone states their exact meaning and intent it’s fairly clear. If some other group hops on the back of the westward wagon that’s not on the horseman.
“You can mean something other than what you say without actually trying.”
No, you can’t. One can be misinterpreted to mean something other than what is said. The difference there is important.
So some group misused globalism.
Which isn’t a term I use often. Just because one group redirecting meaning doesn’t change the origins meaning.
There’s subtext that’s lost when the victors focus on a single cause.
With the civil war you ignore state’s rights. And right now we have a large brewing battle over federalism of voting.
I don’t deny slavery was the glue that held the Confederacy together. Nor do I deny the evils of slavery.
But the failure to acknowledge other major causes allows them to be repeated.
For all the evils of WWII people forget the catalyst that pushed things off. Poland closed its borders and refused to accept deported Pols from Germany.
We risk a similar situation brewing in the underground far right aspects of our country today.
Your constant mischaracterisation of Trump ignores that there is a real threat. And if one of those should get the power of the pen there could be dire consequences.
“Well, for starters: “I support fences, laws, and walls.””
That’s not far right. That’s more than half the country on legal only and catch-and-return.
And nearly half supports a wall”
“basically confirming everything I’ve said about you lacking the balls necessary to criticize Dear Leader”
Or, I recognise the harm it did to the top 85% of the country.
Our family’s health insurance doubled. And if you loose your insurance, such as job loss, you can’t get new insurance until the next “registration” day.
I don’t, the , or now, have a solution. But the implemented program is an absolute disaster.
You blame trump for no replacement. I blame congress. That’s all the more there is.
Bleach…again.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-donald-trump-said-about-disinfectant-/
Don’t forget the very next sentence on bleach and disinfectants was that it was something for Drs to look at.
It was Chris Jackson, a liberal activist, who tweeted the false premise first.
Discussing the changes to the ESA would take a whole thread. I liked a few of the changes (like species) and despised others (most).
Arguably a terrible choice for the position.
“trans military ban”
I remain undecided on trans “inclusionism”.
I think it’s a good thing, ultimately but believe at the moment it’s likely to cause more problems than the sole issue it solves.
The problem is in protecting the tiny minority from another tiny minority that will target them.
And there needs to be harsher punishments for fake trans that break laws.
And I do not agree with teenage and preteen Ginny pigging.
“I’m also willing to say the U.S. should stop fucking around in Central and South America “
Which you know already I agree with. I think we should get the fuck out of everywhere and stop messing around.
Stop killing people. Stop arming rebellions. Stop manipulating foreign elections. Just stop.
”I’ve never once seen you do what I just did for Biden”
I took the time to line item your selection from the lest list.
You ignored it. There’s a fair bit of criticism there.
I’m not happy he didn’t get a replacement out for the ACA. Because Biden sure won’t fix that disaster.
Im beyond mad about his swing to allow federal funding to Christian organisations.
He took a dump on PAC reform. And stood in the way of raising corporate taxes.
His total disregard for the environment was disgraceful but a non-issue as much of it was undone by Biden’s watch. Though he went the opposite extreme.
My support for the wall has always been there. Under Clinton, under Bush, under Obama, and under Trump.
Even Biden once supported a wall and I truly believe he only changed his public stance because it was politically advantageous. I blame the growing mess on his instant flipflop and having no plan to deal with what was already a problem.
There was little pushback when he restarted work.
Trump went out like a child. The stop the steal nonsense was disgusting and devaluing.
There’s plenty I can complain about. But like you I vote for the issues that are most important to me. And accept the baggage that come with that vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I don't agree with January 6th, but I will bend my back and snap my spine in two to make sure those who agree with it don't have their fee-fees hurt by Techdirt leftists" - Lostinlodos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The preceding quote is false. It was not created by lostinlodos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is a huge problem understanding politics, where very little is stated in other than a round about fashion, hinted at or alluded to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Note:
Lostinlodos's "brave people" are 8chan's Ron Watkins and another terrorist sympathizer, and the claimed "security flaws" are a nothingburger:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/08/8chans-ron-watkins-scores-a-ma jor-own-goal-with-leaked-bios-passwords/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh bloody hell what a delightful trainwreck, one crank spinning conspiracy theories out of basic stuff that refutes his narrative and outing his own source, and the person who is almost certainly said source doing everything she can to pin the legal target on her own head by her actions/inactions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your a political hack idiot. I brought up the leak last year as a ‘but…’ response on this very site.
This has nothing to do with that story.
I don’t care what some chanchan turd thinks. I’m talking about RedSkl, DutchRevival, and DaEmOnS33D. Etc. professional bug hunters.
The leak predates the election. Btw. And again Dominion responded to it at the time.
Their admitted reply was that the issues were known and not exploitable in the target environment.
My reply, last year, was along the lines of nobody is watching for someone to plug a usb stick into the easily reachable port.
Not likely is different than not exploitable.
Maybe, Toom-is-god, do some actual research before you jump on your political soap box.
That leak was July or august of 2020. The onion link above has first post at the site as August 15th. 2020.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
in terms of viable evidence that Dominion machines were hacked, what's changed between then and now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think anything has.
I’m not part of the hacked machine conspiracy group; either.
I never said they were hacked and as far as I am aware nothing has ever been proven.
My entire contextual point here is we have evidence, which Dominion admitted to, that the machines are hackable in a rather easy matter.
My point is if you can’t shut the front door; how many windows are left open.
Is this really the hill to climb and the sword to fall on for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
considering how they're fighting to keep the lawsuits going, yes - the real question here is why you think a bunch of lying dicks are going to somehow do the impossible and take down Dominion with conspiracy theories and blatant lies
is it because they're like you, in that they're Trump supporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[(Illiterately) projects facts not in evidemce]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You made a typo calling out my typo.
Lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Muphry's_law exists as regularly as other observed laws online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My hitting an adjacent key on a phone screen keyboard is a typo.
You using the wrong word is not.
Are you really that incapable of understanding anything about which you post?
(That's a rhetorical question, you've already proven the affirmative several times over).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[(Illiterately) projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You double posted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was worth pointing out twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same way you don't care what Trump thinks but will snap your vertebrae in two every time someone might have hurt his fee-fees.
Your track record on this is quite notable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like—insecure ports. Flawed firmware. Remote execution."
Is there any evidence that these were actually real things that existed that didn't come from crackhead pillow salesmen and known con artists? If so, I'd like to finally see it.
"Just because they weren’t hacked isn’t grounds to ignore the potential."
Then, if you're being intellectually honest, you're against the entire concept of electronic voting, since no system designed by human hands is unhackable. There are, however, many ways to mitigate the risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.securityweek.com/experts-false-claims-voting-machines-obscure-real-flaws
Among others. If I post too many links it gets flagged.
“There are, however, many ways to mitigate the risk.“
The two biggest solutions are paper roll verification (which is still lacking on all machines) and to secure ports behind a lock panel.
On our district’s machines (I believe they’re diebold) the usb poet is on the side directly above the smart card reader.
“ against the entire concept of electronic voting”
No, just stupidly insecure machines. IIRC Black Box Voting was the group that showed how easy it was to manipulate older machines. Most of those flaws were fixed over the years.
https://www.newsweek.com/voting-machines-have-flaws-that-should-fixed-votes-not-stolen-security-exp erts-1619334
I have two issues here. I don’t believe security vulnerabilities should be disclosed immediately.
There should be time to fix them privately.
I don’t believe in closed court cases. Every case should be open to the entirety of the public. The entirety of the time.
Hence my catch 22
That aside any further flaws will likely be discussed in closed court. Further filing not just a Republican stoop the steal movement but the general voting populace’s concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep it coming
I love hearing news about the corrupt company suing more people and organizations. It is so great to see this SLAPP suit proceed when we all know that Dominion cannot withstand discovery.
Message to Dominion: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Message to TechDirt: Try to stop cheerleading for a corrupt and evil company?
Just try, ok?
Try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then why hasn’t Dominion dismissed its own lawsuits? Seems like they’re more than happy to proceed on that front if they’re fighting—successfully, might I add!—to keep those lawsuits alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have some footing in that these didn’t attribute sources for the commentary made.
But it’s almost guaranteed their security issues will become front and centre with this attack.
Again, this is going to become not-this-because-that very quickly. And that is generally out of sight right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dominion is still going through with its cases. I doubt they’d do that if they thought they were going to expose all the secrets that the cranks think they know (but actually don’t because the secrets are all bullshit lies fed to them by even bigger liars). Dominion actively fought for (and won!) the right to have its claims against individual defendants (e.g., Giuliant) heard in court. I seriously doubt it would’ve fought for that right if the higher-ups in the company were worried about discovery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You seem to forget something..... Dominion's not suing over security concerns, it's suing over the image portrayed by #45's Clowns-R-Us cabal. They don't need to prove that they have top-notch security, they need only prove that the "evidence" claimed by the defendants is not acceptable as a matter of both law and fact, and therefore was intended, with malice aforethought, to harm the legal business interests of Dominion. That's not a very high bar to hurdle.
However, Dominion isn't after money (except lawyers' fees), they after a total apology, in public. As widespread as possible, meaning across every venue that hosted their crap in the first place. Can you see it now, FOXNews and OANN being forced to host an appearance by each defendant, where they recant their earlier outcries? I've got the popcorn, you bring the drinks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep it coming
resty,
I note the irony of you claiming that Dominion's cases are SLAPP suits, that's rich. But tell me, why would Dominion fear discovery? Or did you not realize that they have nothing to fear after all? Oh, wait, I know... They are paying for legal advice from a team of lawyers who earned more money in the past 72 hours than you made all last year. Could that be what's getting you down, Bunky?
Cheer up! Dominion isn't coming after you, even though you yourownself just defamed them by specifically calling them corrupt, and more than once at that. No, they can ignore you, but they can't ignore those with a public presence on the scale of Giuliani and company. If they were to "just shrug it off", they'd essentially be saying that they don't care about their reputation, and that'd be the end of the ball game for them, right there.
Care to try again? Or did I just go over your head?
#
Disclaimer: I own more than a few shares of both Dominion and Diebold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep it coming
It is so great to see this SLAPP suit proceed when we all know that Dominion cannot withstand discovery.
Yeah, I for one would be shitting my pants if I was Dominion and my information would be evaluated by 'cyber experts' like the ones who fucked up the Arizona audit, and the other gem that was hired by Mike Lindell, who said "yeah this data is just bullshit." Not for nothing, but that clown car of special-ed lawyers doesn't have a good track record for hiring competent technical analysts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Keep it coming
Sometimes stupid people are needed to advance the law on principle such as the Nazi's right to march through Skokie.
Just because someone is a nutjob doesn't give anyone any right to deny them their rights.
You are missing the point entirely. It has nothing to do with the truth of the claims. Under contract Dominion is assuming a public function of the Secretary of State. As such they have no right to sue anyone for libel for any reason related to that function. They cannot enjoy anymore legal privilege than the Secretary of State.
The issue has nothing to do with elections or dominion but entirely with our function of government. We have Homeland Security currently looking to contract with private firms to perform surveillance because there are too many Constitutional constraints if they did it themselves.
This issue came up in the 00s with Blackwater. Blackwater sued for libel and it was tossed because they are a government contractor. If people can make libelous statements about the military in the execution of the public function they can make libelous statements about the military contractor in the execution of the same public function.
This site has a lot of people who claim to care about 1st Amendment issues then throw them out the door when the 1st Amendment becomes a problem.
Fundamentally we cannot allow government contractors to sue for libel related to the contract.
Contracting cannot be a Constitutional loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An actual court of law says otherwise. Unless you’re on the bench in a higher court, your grossly misinformed SovCit interpretation of the law means nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]