• 41 Posts
  • 77 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle






  • We have avoided some of the worst case this election. Down ballot dems have done a lot better than for president and that’s going to matter to keep them from being able to do anything without infighting fears. We could’ve been looking at a 57-43 senate should the swing states not have largely split their votes between senate and president. Instead we’re likely looking at a 53-47 or 52-48 senate.* The house could’ve also been worse too.

    In state legislatures, dems did fairly well all things considered. State legislatures are the place that resistance to Trump is most likely to really be effective. We’ve managed to keep a lot of state legislature seats and even flip some in other areas. For instance, we broke up North Carolina’s republican super majority for instance which means the Democratic governor-elect can have effective vetos. We kept the 1 seat majority in the PA state house in a funny way of having two seats flipped in opposite directions and canceling each other out


    *The Associated Press has called PA for McCormick, but Decision Desk actually thinks that Casey has a ~66% chance of winning still and neither campaign has conceded. McCormick is saying he thinks the call was incorrect and thinks things will could actually flip with the last 100,000 or so votes left to count and or may go to recount

    EDIT: and to add on for further context, Decision Desk is usually some of the first to call any race - to the point where some people say their calls are premature. The AP usually calls races after Decision Desk. The AP usually is much more slow on their calls which is why this situation is so strange where the AP has called it but Decision Desk hasn’t and thinks it actually has 2/3 odds of going the opposite way that the AP called it













  • That’s not the alternative to proving it being false, that’s the alternative to it being knowingly false. You have to show all four of these things for US defamation

    To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

    It’s the 3rd fault one that is the knowingly false or reckless disregard for the truth

    As a result, a defamation plaintiff in an American court must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is false and that the defendant was at fault for publishing it. “Fault,” in the case of a government official or a “public figure,” means that the defendant published the defamatory statement with “actual malice” – which means that he knew it was false or at least recklessly disregarded whether it was true or false

    https://www.carter-ruck.com/law-guides/defamation-and-privacy-law-in-united-states/


  • Maybe for other countries, but this was filed in the US where that’s not the case at all. You need it to not only show it’s false, but that the person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not

    The CNN report was pretty damning and with how extensively they laid out the evidence that tied Robinson was to it, it’d likely be extremely difficult to show 1) that it was false or 2) that they acted recklessly when they were pretty through

    EDIT: and to clarify the “person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” is the standard for finding fault with the person making defamation when the actual malice is used (which is the case for government officials or public figures)