3 ms·

>they did it with the intention of overturning elections: >[...] to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States," The act

by gruez 10mo ago

>they did it with the intention of overturning elections: >[...] to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States," The actual election fraud allegations are probably spurious, but regardless we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself. The badness comes from inappropriate access to the data, not trying to find evidence of fraud.

NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago
>but regardless we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
tshaddox 10mo ago
How many allegations of fraud need to be taken to court and dismissed before it’s no longer conceivable that this is a good faith non-partisan search for evidence of fraud?
- gruez 10mo ago
  >The actual election fraud allegations are probably spurious
  - tshaddox 10mo ago
    Sure, and my point is that we shouldn't apologize for people deliberately "investigating" bogus allegations on the grounds that investigating legitimate allegations is a good thing.
    - gruez 10mo ago
      >Sure, and my point is that we shouldn't apologize for people deliberately "investigating" bogus allegations But I'm not "apologizing" for them? I'm pushing back on OP's phrasing of "they did it with the intention of overturning elections". It's possible to push back on some person's criticism of [bad guy] without being accused of "apologizing" for [bad guy]. From my original comment: >we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself See also my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46734439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46734439
      - tshaddox 10mo ago
        You said "The badness comes from inappropriate access to the data, not trying to find evidence of fraud." I disagree. I think that a blatantly bad faith partisan investigation demanded by a politician who stands for gain and executed by public servants would be bad even if they didn't inappropriately access this data. Both things are bad and would be still be bad independent of one another.
        gruez 10mo ago
        >I think that a blatantly bad faith partisan investigation Sounds like you agree with me, because you're still not objecting to my original premise of "we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself". You might think "bad faith partisan investigation" is bad, but not the act of trying to overturn elections itself.
        tshaddox 10mo ago
        You explicitly applied it to this investigation, saying the investigation itself was not bad. If you intend to weaken your claim to "not all conceivable investigations of election fraud are bad," then yes, I agree, but that's such an extraneous comment that I would question the intent of including it.
        gruez 10mo ago
        >You explicitly applied it to this investigation, saying the investigation itself was not bad. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion given what I wrote was: >we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself
afavour 10mo ago
We don't have to examine every situation in the theoretical. We can pay attention to context. These are not good faith actors, they are not seeking the truth.
- gruez 10mo ago
  Right, I'm not trying to argue that the actions in this case are praiseworthy, only that the OP is misidentifying the source of the badness. That's important, because if we establish a pattern of "overturning elections are bad", then that will come back to bite us when there actually is a legitimate reason for overturning elections.
kccoder 10mo ago
> but regardless we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself The only rational viewpoint is to assume everything this administration does is in bad faith, until proven otherwise.
- xtiansimon 10mo ago
  In the legal realm, journalist and legal analyst Emily Bazelon analyzes the legal "presumption of regularity" which has been trashed by the current administration.

by gruez 10mo ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 10mo ago

>but regardless we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

tshaddox 10mo ago

How many allegations of fraud need to be taken to court and dismissed before it’s no longer conceivable that this is a good faith non-partisan search for evidence of fraud?

gruez 10mo ago
>The actual election fraud allegations are probably spurious
- tshaddox 10mo ago
  Sure, and my point is that we shouldn't apologize for people deliberately "investigating" bogus allegations on the grounds that investigating legitimate allegations is a good thing.
  - gruez 10mo ago
    >Sure, and my point is that we shouldn't apologize for people deliberately "investigating" bogus allegations But I'm not "apologizing" for them? I'm pushing back on OP's phrasing of "they did it with the intention of overturning elections". It's possible to push back on some person's criticism of [bad guy] without being accused of "apologizing" for [bad guy]. From my original comment: >we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself See also my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46734439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46734439
    - tshaddox 10mo ago
      You said "The badness comes from inappropriate access to the data, not trying to find evidence of fraud." I disagree. I think that a blatantly bad faith partisan investigation demanded by a politician who stands for gain and executed by public servants would be bad even if they didn't inappropriately access this data. Both things are bad and would be still be bad independent of one another.
      - gruez 10mo ago
        >I think that a blatantly bad faith partisan investigation Sounds like you agree with me, because you're still not objecting to my original premise of "we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself". You might think "bad faith partisan investigation" is bad, but not the act of trying to overturn elections itself.
        tshaddox 10mo ago
        You explicitly applied it to this investigation, saying the investigation itself was not bad. If you intend to weaken your claim to "not all conceivable investigations of election fraud are bad," then yes, I agree, but that's such an extraneous comment that I would question the intent of including it.
        gruez 10mo ago
        >You explicitly applied it to this investigation, saying the investigation itself was not bad. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion given what I wrote was: >we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself

afavour 10mo ago

We don't have to examine every situation in the theoretical. We can pay attention to context. These are not good faith actors, they are not seeking the truth.

gruez 10mo ago
Right, I'm not trying to argue that the actions in this case are praiseworthy, only that the OP is misidentifying the source of the badness. That's important, because if we establish a pattern of "overturning elections are bad", then that will come back to bite us when there actually is a legitimate reason for overturning elections.

kccoder 10mo ago

> but regardless we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself The only rational viewpoint is to assume everything this administration does is in bad faith, until proven otherwise.

xtiansimon 10mo ago
In the legal realm, journalist and legal analyst Emily Bazelon analyzes the legal "presumption of regularity" which has been trashed by the current administration.