Hacker News Reader

Comment by lisper | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry, but there is no moral equivalence in the U.S. between the left and the right. It's certainly true that neither side is squeaky clean, but the left does not deny basic facts, and in particular, it does not attempt to dispute the outcomes of elections when the results are clear (and indeed has in the past thrown in the towel even when the results were not clear). I could go on and on, but those two things are key. Once you subscribe to the idea that whatever the Dear Leader says is true, evidence be damned, you are lost. The right is doing this even as I write this. The left never has.

View on HN

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological or political flamewar. The last thing we need here is yet another angry, generic argument between left ideology and right ideology. Those are utterly repetitive, and therefore tedious, and therefore off topic on HN.

That's not to say the issues aren't important; of course they are. But this site has a particular scope and repetitive flamewars aren't in it.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I sympathize, and I've been doing my best to keep my comments narrowly focused on matters of fact rather than policy. This is one of the problems we face: facts have been politicized. And the politicization of facts is not evenly distributed along the ideological spectrum. That, too, is simply a fact.

the left does not deny basic facts, and in particular, it does not attempt to dispute the outcomes of elections when the results are clear

Hillary Clinton has been claiming that Trump's election was illegitimate for years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum.... 66% of Democrats believe that Russia directly hacked and manipulated vote counts in the 2016 election: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

> Trump's election was illegitimate

But she does not deny the fact that he did win. She's just saying that he won because of dirty tricks (voter suppression, intentional promulgation of falsehoods), which is plausible. Certainly within the bounds of an opinion one could legitimately hold.

> 66% of Democrats believe that Russia directly hacked and manipulated vote counts in the 2016 election

Sure. A fair percentage of Democrats would probably say that they think that Trump is Satan incarnate. That doesn't change the fact that Democrats do in fact recognize the fact that Trump won the 2016 election. Republicans by and large are not conceding that Biden has won the 2020 election. (They also deny basic facts about climate change, COVID, etc.)

After the last election there was the attempted impeachment and RussiaGate witch hunt which found no evidence that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election. It's pretty brazen to ignore that ans say the left never disputed the election outcome.

> which found no evidence that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election

This is a straight-up lie. Mueller said explicitly they found evidence, but left it to Congress to pursue prosecution.

> Mueller said explicitly they found evidence

Instead of reading what "he said" I'd appreciate reading what the evidence is and what it shows. I'd honestly like to learn.

Edit: just checked, the linked Time's "debunking" confirms that there was no evidence of collusion: the best that they can come to is to claim:

"But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable."

So the fact is, as I read it, there was no evidence of conspiracy. And that's it.

Edit 2: The quote in the answer doesn't say anything better:

"While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”"

Again, the fact in there is "none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy." Then, claiming that it "could be described" ([by whom?] -- there would be at least such mark in a Wikipedia article) is just an attempt to rationalize that fact to these who were emotionally invested. The Democrats could have invested their energy in many other much more important problems they have among them. IMHO Hillary failed not because Trump or any foreign action but because there was awareness of Democrats rigging their party's election process and of she as a war hawk:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clin...

You can start with Time's debunking[1], but really should read what Mueller has written and said, both the report and following articles and interviews.

[1] https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

Edited in response to Parent's edit:

"While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

You don't appear to be having an honest conversation, so I'll bid you good day.

2nd edit: what the heck, let's just quote justsecurity.org's summary of the Mueller report[2]:

"1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration."

[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo...

You omit, from the very article there:

"Although the Mueller Report does not squarely address these questions of “collusion” that fall outside the scope of potential criminal liability, it can be mined for substantive information that provides some meaningful answers." Which precedes all the claims.

So even there it's written as scare quotes "collusion" while admitting that that "falls outside the scope of potential criminal liability."

In short, Trump's yes men behaved then as stupid as they continued to behave later, including now, but being stupid wasn't a crime. Sadly, the obsession of Democrats with all that wasn't less stupid (obviously, I'm writing completely non-partisan).

There was no attempted impeachment. Donald Trump was in fact impeached.

And yes, there was an investigation into possible collusion with the Russians. That investigation was launched and conducted by Republicans.

What does any of that have to do with disputing election outcomes or denying basic facts?

You can read the report, released by the Republican-controlled senate intelligence committee, for yourself:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

This is the redacted report, correct?

Eg. Part of the redacting were removed and this was an example:

> But there are a few shreds of information that are really, genuinely new, and they’re damning of the president. Namely: Trump had direct knowledge of Roger Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, according to multiple witnesses interviewed by Mueller. He encouraged that outreach and asked his campaign chairman to pursue it further, those witnesses said. And Mueller’s office appears to have strongly suspected, without putting it in so many words, that Trump lied to the special counsel in his written answers to Mueller’s questions about the Stone affair.

I'm not going to read the version where they hide the important bits.

I would read a complete one though.

There is no question there was Russian interference in the 2016 election with reams of evidence to back it up. It was then spun that Trump specifically did not conspire.

Conspiring does not matter. It is entirely irrelevant to the goal of validating the integrity of the election. If they care so much about fraud they would have continued to investigate all of the irregularities around the 2016 election.

Give us the frigging evidence at last !!!

"they" blocked witnesses, lied under oath and released a "redacted" transcript.

Biden also said at least once that he might not accept the result of the election if he lost. (Sorry, don't have a reference handy, but I saw it.) I believe that his point was that he would also have to look at fraud. And he said it much less often than Trump did. Still it was rather scary to have both sides saying it.

> Sorry, don't have a reference handy

Res ipsa loquitur.

I believe that what you're thinking of was that Biden was counseled not to concede early (1)

Which is not the same thing. And given the way it turned out with late-counted postal votes, quite wise.

1) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clint...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUS...

Clinton said, rather injudiciously, that Biden shouldn’t concede. What she probably meant was that the mail-in ballots have historically favored the Democratic Party, and are in most cases counted after Election Day.

Neither side should concede until the ballots are sufficiently evident. We’ve reached that point.

> Sorry, don't have a reference handy, but I saw it.

The unfortunate refrain of too many people repeating falsehoods online and in person these days.

Left denies basic facts about:

1. Trump's legitimate election in 2016 - see all the hysterical reactions like "Not my president" protests or urging faithless elector to vote for anyone else but trump route or "Russia-gate" (left's Benghazi?) or the impeachment farce. (I don't think I need to provide any citations here).

2. Illegal immigration - left doesn't acknowledge that this is a problem. And then you see left's contradictory messaging ("illegal immigration has slowed down to a trickle") to thousands of children showing up on our borders. Couple that with ridiculous demands like "Abolish the ICE" or calling Obama the "Deporter in Chief". Concrete example of a prominent leftist: https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-abolish-ice-hysterectomy-whistl...

3. Economics: there is a broad agreement among the economists (including someone like Krugman) that rent control doesn't work. Yet you keep seeing repeated attempts from the left. Latest example: CA Prop 21.

Read the Ukraine transcript and say it wasn't a flagrant abuse of power with a straight face.

The transcript combined with the many House testimonies.

It amazes me that because the Senate didn't convict or even have a trial (for political self-preservation alone), people just think it's a farce.

> Illegal immigration - left doesn't acknowledge that this is a problem

It certainly does. That's why the left supports policies like DACA.

The disagreement is not about whether or not illegal immigration is a problem. The disagreement is very much about what the right way to fix the problem is, which is well within the bounds of legitimate policy disagreement.

> rent control doesn't work

Of course it does. Rent control keeps rents from going up. Whether or not this is desirable, or whether it has undesirable ancillary effects that outweigh the benefits, is again the subject of legitimate disagreement over policy.

> impeachment farce. (I don't think I need to provide any citations here).

You could just watch the House testimony? Trump clearly tried to use the United States' leverage to get another country's leader to create bad press for the man who he saw as his biggest threat to the re-election.

Imagine if nobody blew the whistle and the Ukrainian president did what Trump wanted. Trump could've beaten Biden off the back of that. Off the back of abuse of power!

> does not attempt to dispute the outcomes of elections

You may not be old enough to remember, but Al Gore (democrat) did _exactly_ this 20 years ago.

Al Gore never claimed that he was the only legitimate winner months before the election began and that any result in which he lost would be fraudulent.

It's quite the revisionist stretch to claim "exactly". There were many very different circumstances.

Relevant article posted on NPR just today:

FACT CHECK: What's Happening In This Election Is Not Like Florida In 2000

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/13/934190243/fact-check-whats-ha...

You left out an important piece of context:

"does not attempt to dispute the outcomes of elections when the results are clear"

In 2000 the results were not clear. This year they are.

Furthermore, once the Supreme Court shut down the Florida recount, effectively handing the White House to George Bush (on very questionable legal grounds [1]), Al Gore conceded.

[1] https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/please-dona8217t-cite-t...

Came down to 500 votes in a single state. This ain't that.

Al Gore gave a decent concession speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5YdkYSyEE

I didn't recall the date though, I checked and it was on December 13th, 2000.

Come back on 14 December 2020 and tell me if that aspect is "exactly this".

because the narrow vote count margin aspect that time really isn't, and the claims of fraud and rigging this time really isn't. And neither bode well for a hypothetical Trump concession speech.

Al Gore disputed the outcome of a single state where he lost by a few hundred votes. He did not dispute the outcome of the entire electoral process or make baseless claims that it was rigged for months leading up to and after the election.

You're missing substantial historical perspective here. In both 2000 and 2004 - the last two Republican presidential victories that are old enough to talk about without inflaming modern political tensions - Congressional representatives on the left attempted to block the counting of electoral college votes from a crucial swing state. I don't mean to defend these kinds of challenges, I think they're dumb, but they're sadly quite common.

> Congressional representatives on the left attempted to block the counting of electoral college votes from a crucial swing state

Reference?

Florida in 2000: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jan-07-mn-9426-...

Ohio in 2004: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Boxer-delays-preside... . (It should be noted for the sake of fairness that the leaders of this attempt claimed they weren't trying to overturn the election results by blocking the count.)

Florida in 2000 bears no resemblance to this situation. Trump and his supporters are alleging widespread, systemic fraud for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Florida in 2000 was a historically close election for which there should have been a recount, but the election was handed to Bush by the Supreme Court instead.

Right. And in 2004 Boxer's action was a symbolic protest designed to draw attention to voting irregularities. She never seriously sought to change the outcome.

Again: there is no moral equivalence here.

Do you dispute that Ohio in 2004 bears a resemblance? Every Presidential election of course has its own unique context, so if you want to discuss broader patterns you have to be willing to step back from the nitty-gritty of each individual year.

I do, because Ohio was a single state with apparently some irregularities in the vote, and the effort to challenge was not even broadly supported within the Democratic party. What is being alleged here is that Democrats "stole" the election. Nonsense.

I think we're talking across each other here. I'm not attempting to draw a strict equivalence; I'm not saying this year is as bad as that year, this side is as bad as that side, this argument is as bad as that argument. I'm just saying that the original claim - that only one part of the political spectrum attempts to dispute clear election results - is flawed.

I'm not talking about in general though, I am talking about this year. And moreover, one senator and one representative cannot be taken as representative of a whole side. One objection is an aberration. A whole party objecting is a political strategy.

That sounds like we are indeed talking across each other, then. I'm not talking about this year.

You were bringing in historical perspective to justify the idea that the left commonly denies basic facts to dispute clear election results. I have argued, and I believe demonstrated, that the context you present does not support the conclusion you argue. This is disagreement, not misunderstanding.

Florida 2000 was indeed very different. That said, Gore was hoisted by his own petard and not by SCOTUS. It's important to remember that Gore did not wish to recount the entire state and all the ballots in the same way, but only in areas and ways considered favourable to Gore.

If Gore hadn't tried that stunt, the process wouldn't have dragged on until December, and the Court wouldn't have been able to interfere. Even more ironically, later attempts to check the count show that all of the recounting standards Gore had actually asked for would have led to Bush winning; Only a complete and fair recount may have allowed Gore to win.

Do you have a source for these allegations? It doesn't track my understanding of the Florida recount, and moreover it's pretty indisputable that SCOTUS acted illegitimately, regardless of what the outcome would have been.

See [0] for a SCOTUS-favourable perspective on Gore's original request and how even the Florida court version was tilted. As for recount results, wiki has a decent overview [1].

[0] http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/L...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...

See especially the NORC results. The wiki entry argues that if the Florida court had continued the proceedings, it may have applied a uniform standard where Gore would have won - but none of the existing orders did that, they used standards where Bush would have won [based on NORC]. Anyway, by Dec. 12 time was running out, the Federal deadline was Dec. 18.

I believe that if Gore had pursued the fair strategy from the beginning than there would have been time enough for the uniform standard recount and no cause for the partial recounts and the appeals that wasted so much time.

The governor of that swing state happened to be the brother of the Republican presidential candidate. That governor's secretary of state also purged the registrations of 90,000 black voters months before the election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com