If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
I believe Tucker's emails were important because they showed that he was attempting to shut down fact-checking on the network entirely, not just on his program. He became livid when anyone on the News side of Fox debunked Trump's election lies. He demanded reporters be fired for daring to call into question Sydney Powell's integrity while simultaneously calling her a psycho bitch in private.
So you can claim all you want that Tucker "never" once claimed the election was stolen but he worked as hard as he could to make sure no one on HIS network would publicly dispute those claims.
Fox News did not believe that the election was stolen, but they pandered to their viewers by hosting anti-Dominion "rigged voting machine" kooks and grifters. I'll accept/concede that. They didn't want to piss off their already pissed off customer base, many of whom have a love/hate relationship with the network. It's a shitty practice.
If pandering to your viewers is worth $780 Million of damage, then there are a lot of media outlets who deserve to cough up tons of money.
Last edited by Hannibal; April 20, 2023, 08:28 AM.
The Delaware ruling that eventually precipiated settlement. Of some note, the judge correctly noted that damages were a jury question, but that he would pick up the amount issue after the evidence was submitted -- I think the judge new the amount was out of whack and wasn't going to allow it. The last part of the opinion gets into the Fox privilege defenses.
The attack on freedom of speech, and allowing dissenting viewpoints is an huge issue that’s getting worse.
I’m not sure the Right has the social currency to stop this shit. It’s going to take good people to the Left to speak out and condemn this for change to happen. Those voices are shockingly mute, though.
The Left is 100% "for me not for thee" so don't expect the Progs to speak out any time soon, and they run that ship. DSL may, occasionally, be shamed into saying, "yeah, that's not 100% right" but the other Progs here love it.
You can tell who is on the wrong end of the censorship stick when you see who is championing the First Amendment. For a long time, it was liberal Ds who sought to challenge the orthodoxy and who championed the marketplace of ideas. Now it's just the Right, which also reveals where the orthodoxy and power really is.
But, yeah, until "Clinton Ds" stand up to the Progs, there is nothing to stop the Ds from rapidly moving toward and embracing the totalitarian Left.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
And, of course, while the Authoritarian Left claims even more power, the Rs continue to push all-in with DJT, despite Mike's delusional best dreams that DeSantis somehow wins in 2024.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
The Delaware ruling that eventually precipiated settlement. Of some note, the judge correctly noted that damages were a jury question, but that he would pick up the amount issue after the evidence was submitted -- I think the judge new the amount was out of whack and wasn't going to allow it. The last part of the opinion gets into the Fox privilege defenses.
Let's say, for a moment, that I agree with Dominion's arguments. Do you think that Fox News's operations are an aberration? Or that if we pulled back the curtain at all of the other news networks we wouldn't find cases that are even worse?
My goal here isn't to whine about how unfair the Dominion case ended up being. I have accepted that that's where we are now as a society. My goal is to make the argument that the Right needs to adopt the strategies that are being successfully used against them. I no longer have hope or faith that we are a society governed by the rule of law and its reasonable interpretations. I know that you have a lot more faith in our systems than I do. I used to have that faith as well but I don't anymore.
Last edited by Hannibal; April 20, 2023, 08:39 AM.
And, of course, while the Authoritarian Left claims even more power, the Rs continue to push all-in with DJT, despite Mike's delusional best dreams that DeSantis somehow wins in 2024.
Maybe going scorched earth on Donald Trump and handing the Democrats more power isn't the best strategy for defeating the authoritarian Left? How much further down the slippery slope are we going to be when this strategy bears fruit and things turn around? Is it before we reach a demographic tipping point where Republicans can no longer win a national election?
I don't love the guy myself but he's not my enemy, nor is he yours.
Last edited by Hannibal; April 20, 2023, 08:42 AM.
Let's say, for a moment, that I agree with Dominion's arguments. Do you think that Fox News's operations are an aberration? Or that if we pulled back the curtain at all of the other news networks we wouldn't find cases that are even worse?
My goal here isn't to whine about how unfair the Dominion case ended up being. It's to make the argument that the Right needs to adopt the strategies that are being successfully used against them.
The Narrative dominates. So, sure. The problem, I think, is how careful or careless you are in pimping The Narrative. "Actual malice" is a really hard standard to meet in a defamation case. Really hard. But, yeah, I'm sure on at least some occasions you could find it. I think the Sandman example is right there.
You need the right Plaintiff and the right facts. The law is generally bad for defamation plaintiffs. With the right Plaintiff and right facts maybe you get somewhere where you can exert the type of leverage on the defendant that forces a really bad settlement.
I still view this as a $100M case at most and probably way less than that, and I think that's where it would have ended up. Unless FOX witnesses were an abject disaster. But, Dominion leveraged the shit out of them. They had claims that could rightly survive summary judgment (IMO) and get to a jury and FOX wanted nothing to do with that.
So, yeah -- you can try, but it's going to be hard. You just can't fling out any old example. You need a "private" plaintiff and you need specific lies about that plaintiff and then you have a shot.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Let's say, for a moment, that I agree with Dominion's arguments. Do you think that Fox News's operations are an aberration? Or that if we pulled back the curtain at all of the other news networks we wouldn't find cases that are even worse?
My goal here isn't to whine about how unfair the Dominion case ended up being. It's to make the argument that the Right needs to adopt the strategies that are being successfully used against them.
I think the Dominion case is giving you the wrong impression as to how easy these cases are to win. Dominion had an unusually strong case. And maybe SmartMatic does too, although I don't remember that company being mentioned nearly as much by the nutjobs.
Kyle Rittenhouse hasn't sued anyone yet because being called a "murderer" isn't particularly slanderous when you openly admit you killed a couple people in self-defense. It's obviously protected "opinion". If they call you a "convicted murderer", that's different. The reason that no lawyer has sued on his behalf isn't because there's not one conservative lawyer in America with any guts. It's because the case would be weak, risky, and at some point he became a quasi "public figure".
Again, Fox won a defamation suit filed by Karen McDougal just a couple years ago in a New York federal courtroom. I think the judge just straight up tossed it.
Maybe going scorched earth on Donald Trump and handing the Democrats more power isn't the best strategy for defeating the authoritarian Left? How much further down the sliippery slope are we going to be when this strategy bears fruit?
I don't love the guy myself but he's not my enemy, nor is he yours.
The political reality -- and that's all I care about -- is that DJT is a friend of the Ds and a friend of my enemey is not my friend. He's a friend in that -- again, in our political reality -- he enables D power. And they know that.
Now, we can fight all day long about what the political reality SHOULD be and you can wish it away all you want or belittle and mock those who contribute to it -- as long as you acknowledge what the political reality is. Yeah, I'd have loved to play Georgia in the 4th Q with Marvin Harrison on the field, but that wasn't happening. You'd love it if people just embraced DJT or, at a minimum, didn't recoil from him. But the cake is baked on him. BAKED. At this point, not embracing the political reality about DJT is delusional. It's just not going to change.
I'm saying you don't accept it, btw. I get that you do. You'd rather it not be so, but it is. And that's where the game is being played.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
As you know, murder is the unlawful killing of another. The court decided there was nothing unlawful. I think he has a technical case, but that’s a lot to go through and fraught with issues.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
It'd have to be "Rittenhouse was found guilty of murder" or something like that.
There's no chance for him for statements made before the verdict unless they were outright lies. Saying he "is guilty of murder" while the trial is ongoing is commentary.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
The political reality -- and that's all I care about -- is that DJT is a friend of the Ds and a friend of my enemey is not my friend. He's a friend in that -- again, in our political reality -- he enables D power. And they know that.
Now, we can fight all day long about what the political reality SHOULD be and you can wish it away all you want or belittle and mock those who contribute to it -- as long as you acknowledge what the political reality is. Yeah, I'd have loved to play Georgia in the 4th Q with Marvin Harrison on the field, but that wasn't happening. You'd love it if people just embraced DJT or, at a minimum, didn't recoil from him. But the cake is baked on him. BAKED. At this point, not embracing the political reality about DJT is delusional. It's just not going to change.
I'm saying you don't accept it, btw. I get that you do. You'd rather it not be so, but it is. And that's where the game is being played.
What's your proposed solution? What is your vision for how this thing gets turned around? And when does that turnaround happen? 2024? 2028? When?
Right now you are adopting the scorched earth strategy of punishing the Republican Party until they dump Trump. As a result, the Democrats are pushing the country further down the slippery slope into oblivion. This strategy also involves telling 74 million people who voted for him that they are stupid bumpkins for voting for the guy when their alternative is a disaster.
You talk about accepting reality. Here's a reality for you 74 million people voted for Trump in 2020. Every one of those 74 million votes will be needed to defeat the Democrats in future elections. If you go scorched Earth on Trump you will lose a massive amount of those people. And rightly so. And in the process, you will lose 4 more years of precious time.
What's easier -- changing the mind of the 74 miillion voters who voted for Trump? Or changing the minds of a 1 million or so swing voters who are anti-woke but don't like Trump? That's probably all that you would need.
It'd have to be "Rittenhouse was found guilty of murder" or something like that.
There's no chance for him for statements made before the verdict unless they were outright lies. Saying he "is guilty of murder" while the trial is ongoing is commentary.
Wouldn’t “Rittenhouse is a murderer” after the trial satisfy the libel?
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
Tweet
Comment