Hacker News Reader

Comment by jorblumesea | Hacker News Reader

I'm always confused as to how the Koch-funded candidates did so well on almost comically evil platforms. It seems the referendum on "Obama" policies in 2010 did nothing but damage the states they were elected in and did little to solve any real problems. People thought they were sticking it to the feds but really just shot themselves in the foot. Massive cuts in every department, even things like transportation which shouldn't be a hyper partisan issue. I get that abortion clinics or healthcare is a hot button issue, but building roads? Who looked at that platform and said, you know, I wish we'd stop spending so much money on maintaining our crumbling roads?

Populist anger did little to improve anyone's lives and you also saw this in the 2016 election. For as angry as everyone was at the status quo, what do we have now? Even worse status quo, vis a vis the new tax plan which is just a oligarchic power grab and a president who literally cannot govern to save his life.

View on HN

People vote on party lines a super high rate in most areas on the US, it's close to 90% except in unusual cases. Contemporarily it's the reason GOP voters have a tough time choosing between a sexual predator and a Democrat in the Alabama special Senate election, one side thinks the other side is so evil they feel this is a difficult choice.

Also gerrymandering for districts make it so once it's guaranteed to be a party seat, the primaries can skew towards the extreme of that party.

Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent. I don't know what actually happened, but it's dangerous to ever let go of that legal right.

Do you apply that standard to every allegation in an election?

> Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent.

A court determination isn't possible in the Moore case. In Alabama, the statute of limitations for a civil claim of sexual abuse of a minor is just years past the victim's 19th birthday. Roy Moore could still in theory still be prosecuted criminally because one of the victims was under 16 and the statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor is unlimited, but really there is no chance of that.

But just because allegations don't rise to the level of imprisoning someone doesn't mean that's the end of it. Reputations typically are mediated by non-legal means. If someone writes a blog post: "don't invest with <X> he ripped me off," nobody demands to see the civil judgment for fraud.

Yes, but you have people who say they believe the allegations but are inclined to vote for him anyway because of their ideology.

So are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is showing that someone is guilty, you should NEVER use that information to help guide your vote decision unless that person has been convicted by a court of law?

That is just silly, and you can easily see why with just a little bit of thought. Almost everything you use in determining who to vote for in an election has not been adjudicated in a court of law, but you still use it to form your opinion of who should be elected.

There is a difference between the courts not sentencing you for a crime until you are convicted and a voter using accusations against a candidate to inform their vote.

Alleged sexual predator.

edit: Why downvotes? An alleged sexual predator and a sexual predator are two different things. Anyone can become an alleged sexual predator with an allegation, whereas sexual predators are sexual predators through their own actions, regardless of allegations.

At this point no one really knows if Roy Moore is a sexual predator or not besides for Roy Moore and his accuser, who is only attempting to try Moore in the court of public opinion and not in a court of law, despite retaining council of a very well known lawyer.

You're not helping your argument by pretending there's only one person accusing him of such behavior, when in fact there are many and doing so from a variety of perspectives.

You would still be entitled to be skeptical of such allegations, of course, but their multiplicity is an empirical fact that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Dating 18/19 year olds in your 20s/30s does not make you a sexual predator. As far as I understand it there was only one person who is accusing Moore of actual crimes, who alleges he dated and kissed her when she was 14. Are there other allegations I missed?

It's very interesting that Moore has been quite an active and public elected official in the past, but every current accuser independently decided to not say anything until this election cycle. What gives?

https://politics.theonion.com/roy-moore-on-pedophilia-accuse...

If you have anything substantive to add, it would be better to not link to the onion.

You wondered why accusations would come out now, The Onion headline very accurately articulates a reason for that:

"Roy Moore On Pedophilia Accusers: ‘These Women Are Only Discrediting Me Now Because Shifting Sociocultural Norms Have Created An Environment In Which Assault Allegations Are Taken Seriously’"

Sure, that is one explanation. Another explanation is that these people are trying to blow up any persons career who has an (R) next to their name, or they want 15 minutes of fame. How do you determine what is the truth and what isn't in a he-said-she-said story from 30 years ago?

The same way I would in any other difficult circumstance, by weighing the evidence and making the best guess I can. This seems to be affecting people across the political spectrum, across industries, and across local culture. What seems to be consistent is that more of the harassment comes from men, and that people in powerful positions often exploit their privileged position to get easy sex.

Maybe you've never had to deal with this in your own life or in the life of someone who was close to you. Congratulations, you've been lucky.

I could similarly say: Maybe you've never had to deal with a false rape accusation in your own life or in the life of someone who was close to you. Congratulations, you've been lucky.

> Maybe you've never had to deal with a false rape accusation in your own life or in the life of someone who was close to you.

False rape accusations are a little more rare than men abusing their position of power over women. The later is endemic. Avoiding a false rape accusation isn't luck. But ask your wife, your mother, your daughter, your sister. I bet they all have stories of unwanted sexual attention from men. This kind of stuff happens daily for them. For women, it's like a constant background drone of men leering at them. Sometimes it's whistling. Sometimes it's stalking. Sometime's it's groping, and yes, sometimes it's rape. But it's a minefield, and it really is luck if they are never confronted with such indecency.

Further, if you've been paying attention, you'll notice the people being accused are serial offenders. In one case, more than a dozen women came forward. Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations.

> False rape accusations are a little more rare than men abusing their position of power over women. The later is endemic

Okay, but that doesn't tell you anything about the truthiness of this specific event. Black people commit way more murders per capita than asian people in America - would you use that factoid as a hunch that between two suspects in a murder(one asian, one black), that the black one is more likely guilty?

> Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations.

Is that the only possibility you see? It's either a massive conspiracy among women in general, or the accusations are true?

> Okay, but that doesn't tell you anything about the truthiness of this specific event.

That wasn't really a comment about the truthiness of this specific event, but about your comment about being lucky for avoiding a false rape accusation. That's like saying you're lucky that you didn't get struck by lightning. Well, okay I guess, but it's not a frequent occurrence to begin with.

> Black people commit way more murders per capita than asian people in America

In Moore's case, I'm not coming to any conclusion by looking at frequency of occurrence alone, as I wouldn't in a murder case. However, I probably wouldn't elect either man accused of murder to the Senate. Regardless, I think you're still not appreciating how widespread an issue this is for women. It happens on the sidewalk walking down the street, on the bus, at work, at a restaurant, on the train, at church, at school, at the hospital. Men are sleazes, and I'm pretty sure the sleaze frequency in men is much higher than the murder frequency in blacks. Much higher. Like, 60-80% high. And the worst part is, there is zero awareness of this by sleazy men.

> Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations. Is that the only possibility you see? It's either a massive conspiracy among women in general, or the accusations are true?

Yeah, pretty much. Although, I'm willing to hear a scenario that could account for all of the accusations, the corroborating facts, the mall ban, and Roy Moore not being able to definitively say he didn't pursue teenage girls.

1) Some of the accusers are Republicans and voted for Trump. They probably are ideologically aligned with Moore in many ways.

2) It's not a he-said-she-said story. It's 9 accusers, whose stories were corroborated by others (who were told 30 years ago). One accuser can describe the inside of Moore's house in detail. Another has a yearbook signed from him referencing the restaurant he claims to have never visited. Still others from the community note that he was banned from the mall for being creepy with teenagers. And finally, Moore himself cannot offer a full throated denial that he has pursued teenagers in the past. Just not these particular women.

3) Claiming these women want "15 minutes of fame" is naive. No one is getting "famous" off of this. The victims are opening old wounds and getting new ones in the form of death threats and attacks on their character. It's not fun for anyone coming forward.

It does seem odd that the allegations never came up either time he ran for and won a spot on the state's supreme court. He was a controversial figure both of those elections so it's not because of flying under the radar. Glad I don't live in Alabama.

It's not so much of a stretch. This is by far the highest-profile race Moore has ever been involved with. The allegations were sniffed out by a national paper that was there to cover it. Moreover, we're in the midst of a moment when women who've been harassed or abused by public figures are more willing to come forward.

Actually, no. The story is that this woman approached a reporter when she was there for a completely different story.

> Moreover, we're in the midst of a moment when women who've been harassed or abused by public figures are more willing to come forward.

Right, so does that mean we are more likely to hear about true, buried stories, or hear about new fabricated stories? Or both?

*Accusers, very much plural at this point.

But more to your point, Roy Moore has not been arrested. He has not been, and probably will not be, charged with any criminal or civil infraction. He has, however, accepted his party's nomination for a seat in the United States Senate and is currently actively campaigning for same.

It is worth remembering that allegations are not, in and of themselves, proof of wrongdoing. It's also worth remembering that a political campaign is not a trial, that the press does not have the same investigatory powers as the judicial system, and that the "punishment" being threatened is not being able to be a United States Senator after all. It's actually okay for "the court of public opinion" to have a different burden of proof and standard of evidence than an actual court.

"[I]t is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" is a wise and good maxim. "It is better 100 guilty Persons be elevated to high office than one innocent Person should resign from a campaign they had no guarantee of winning in the first place" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

At this late stage, if Moore dropped out(which he won't), he would be handing the election to the other party. It isn't like the republicans can just find an allegation-free drop-in replacement for Moore and get him elected.

My problem with making any kind of decision based on these allegations is that it is impossible to differentiate them from fabrications designed to blow up a campaign, all down to the detail of having Gloria Allred as legal council(a person heavily involved in the DNC - from Gloria's DNC leaks: "We will come together and discuss the upcoming race, and why we as Democrats must do everything we can to ensure a Democrat remains in the White House for the next four years." - any reason to believe she has given up on her mission to ensure democrats succeed over republicans after the 2016 elections?)

Yes, at least one dyed-in-the-wool Democratic operative is now attached to this scandal. And yes, at this late date the only realistic alternative is that the seat goes to a member of the other party. I would hate to be a Republican partisan in Alabama right now, and if I were I'm genuinely not sure how I would choose to vote. That's different, though, than refusing to consider the allegations because they're politically inconvenient. It's possible Roy Moore is a creep. It's also possible half a dozen unrelated people are lying. There's no reason to think those must be equally possible, and there's certainly no reason not to think that one can't make an educated guess as to which is true.

To shift political gears somewhat, our legislature is currently engaged in a debate about tax reform. One party claims the currently proposed plan will cut taxes on the middle class. The other party claims that the plan will raise taxes on the middle class. That's a question of fact, and both positions can't simultaneously be correct. The thought process you engaged in above can be applied equally well to that situation regardless of which party one favors, but it's guaranteed to make at least one party's fans wrong.

When we, as a polity, begin to completely disregard information because it comes from a partisan source or has strong partisan implications then I worry that we lose the idea of a shared reality. We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.

I'm not refusing to consider the allegations, because there is frankly nothing for me to consider besides for the not-under-oath account of someone, and perhaps a yearbook signed by a 'Ray' or 'Roy'.

> We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.

But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of. There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.

> But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of.

That is true. And by refusing to give the allegations credence you have implicitly decided whose word to take.

> There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.

Sure there is. You can evaluate the plausibility of each claim. You can verify that the claims are internally consistent. You can ask what motivations each party would have to lie, or what motivations each party would have to tell the truth here and now. None of those will get you to ironclad, unquestionable certainty, but it sounds like you're at ironclad, unquestionable certainty now and I'm not sure logical analysis had much to do with you forming that opinion.

It's fine, really, if you've looked at the evidence and found it unconvincing. It's fine, too, if you've decided it is convincing but that your partisan interests are strong enough that you're willing to overlook them. But it sounds like you're just refusing to engage with them because they're confusing. That's not wisdom. It's anti-intellectual tribalism at it's most raw, and I for one expect better of the commenters at HN.

> My problem with making any kind of decision based on these allegations is that it is impossible to differentiate them from fabrications designed to blow up a campaign

In order to believe this is a conspiracy against Moore, you must also believe that a bunch of teenagers 30 years ago made up stories about Moore, which they told their friends and loved ones at the time, and then waited to use those allegations across all of his political career only to come out now and derail him. Either that, or the conspiracy is so vast as to include 9 accusers, 30 corroborating witnesses, former mall employees, and an ex cop. Many of the accusers are also Republicans and voted for Trump, so you must also believe they are secret Democrats, or at least were somehow bribed by the Democrats to switch sides.

It's either that, or Moore is guilty.

Here's something for you to read. Go ahead and give it a go, and then maybe you can figure out which is more likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

You’re not elected until proven innocent.

You have a public figure, law enforcement official and chief judge with a pretty well demonstrated (even celebrated) contempt for following the law, whose behavior towards young girls while a law enforcement official is fairly well documented.

The idea that an ADA in his 30s is cruising the shopping malls looking for teen (even if legal) companions is disturbing on many levels. Is that really the caliber of man that belongs in the US Senate?

In public service, perception matters.

Tag line I keep seeing is "Pedophile vs Abortionist", or the less quaint "Pedophile vs baby killer". You can argue over which is true or not about the Democrat (I don't live in that state and know nothing of the candidate...I'm reporting on my Facebook feed and and a few subreddits I subscribe), but I'm seeing acceptance over the Pedophile part, and abortion is a hot button topic among the religiously conservative.

Here is one report about some Alabama faith leaders who claim they would vote for Moore even if the allegations are true:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/11/19/why-evange...

However, women voted Bill Clinton and feminists aggressively supported him despite his sexual assault of multiple women. So there are ideological nutcases on all sides.

I don't think that's fair except in hindsight. The entire national conversation and attitude towards sexual harassment and sexual assault was pretty different 2 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. And to their credit, a number of liberal writers and thinkers have recently admitted that they got it wrong and should have called for Clinton's impeachment / resignation in light of the accusations back then.

Has Doug Jones (the Democratic candidate) performed abortions?

The right wing of the US has been conditioned for 3+ decades now to hate secular liberal ideals in general and the Obamas / Clintons in particular. Neither Bill or Hillary Clinton have held an elected office in years, but you'd never know it by viewing any of the big conservative outlets. Those outlets created boogeymen who are easy to get a negative response from, and their politically aligned allies just run against those boogeymen and win, because voting against Evil(tm) makes being screwed feel a little better.

> Who looked a that platform and said, you know, I wish we'd stop spending so much money on maintaining our crumbling roads?

Having watched 26th Street paved, torn up for one utility, re-paved, torn up for another utility, re-paved, torn up for a construction project that was scheduled months in advance and re-paved again, all in the span of two weeks, I empathize with this sentiment. In certain states and cities, public spending is so wasteful that returning the cash to private citizens can feel, if not be, better than continuing to throw it down a hole. The effect can persist if people rationalize away the pain as necessary medicine.

Totally, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Combating government waste is a solvable issue and requires civilian accountability, transparency etc. Elect more progressive candidates instead of Koch funded stooges. Instead of demanding more from our government we instead decide to just destroy it and elect destructive backwards candidates whose only real solution is regression to some developing world state.

The "starve the beast" mentality just doesn't work, and serves only to ensure the average person suffers.

I guess it doesn't help that the Right has been engaged in a war against education for decades now...

We choose to be Governed by a system that has a tendency to be inefficient at times. The solution is probably to try and fix it rather than abandon it altogether. It seems to have worked for the past 200+ years...

Our government isn't just inefficient at times. It's notably less efficient than other developed countries. E.g. even if you take military spending out of the equation, Canada provides more services to citizens while spending a couple of thousand dollars less per head than we do. Peoples' frustrations aren't unwarranted.

You can't really take out defense spending, because defense and healthcare are pretty much the federal budget.

If you want to change things you gonna have to look at defense and healthcare.

I can't remember the last time I've heard the phrase "the defense budget has been reduced this year...".

You can take defense spending out of both budgets and compare the two. You also can't ignore state and local budgets. Defense spending is only about 10% of total combined government expenditures.

You can take defense spending out but you can't take out the distribution of Canada's population. According to [1] and [2], the top 30 municipalities of Canada make up 16 million people (across ~20,000 sq km) out of Canada's total population of 36 million while the top 30 cities in the US have a population of only about 40 million (out of 310+ million in the country) on roughly ~22,000 sq km. The scale and density of the United States is completely different to Canada, where a much larger percent of the population is within the same area as ~14% of the US population as measured by the biggest cities (the smallest autonomous entity that is still practical to analyze wrt spending relative to Canadian municipalities). We're talking 2-5x cost increases on infrastructure, services, and logistics for at least half the population compared to urban areas

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_munici...

Interesting. Do we know the cause of this inefficiency? (I'm looking more for a scientific, rather than an ideological cause)

Interesting. I'm curious how the USA and Canada compare on privatization, outsourcing, cronyism, etc.

The domain I know a lot about, election administration, the various US state, county, local governments are being fleeced by the vendors.

From what little I know about education, all the standardized tests, text books, charter schools, etc. are just excuses to divert funds to cronies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com