NRCC is proud of their idea to create fake Dem websites

[uke2se]

Bolding mine. Seems pretty obvious to me that Foolmewunz is referring to the home page of the site which is what was being talked about in this thread. Not once is there any mention of any of the other pages of the site.

For 16.5 to try and pretend that you were being deliberately dishonest is downright absurd.

Foolmewunz says "that page" and links to the page he is talking about. All 16.5 had to do is say, it's not on that page, it's on this one. And provide a link or instructions for where to click. End of story.

Instead, we get drama and word games and conspiracy and well forum rules prevent a more accurate description of what we get.

Business as usual, in other words.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is the type of dishonest nonsense I have to put up with.

The donate button takes you to page that contains the quote I said and thereafter you have to fill in your personal information if you want to donate.

Unbelievable.

Do you have him on ignore?

16.5: "Christ. Hit the "donate" button foolmewunz. Just go ahead and do that, would you?"

The message AIUI is after you push Donate. No, I don't intend to find out either.

Christ. Hit the "donate" button foolmewunz. Just go ahead and do that, would you?

Just in case you need to check, here's the link to the site, again, that has the donate button right the hell on it.

http://johnlewis4congress.com/

The guy questions my "honesty" because he misunderstood my posts and did not follow the very link we were talking about.

Unbelievable.

Bolding mine. Seems pretty obvious to me that Foolmewunz is referring to the home page of the site which is what was being talked about in this thread. Not once is there any mention of any of the other pages of the site.

For 16.5 to try and pretend that you were being deliberately dishonest is downright absurd.

Foolmewunz says "that page" and links to the page he is talking about. All 16.5 had to do is say, it's not on that page, it's on this one. And provide a link or instructions for where to click. End of story.

Instead, we get drama and word games and conspiracy and well forum rules prevent a more accurate description of what we get.

"instructions" provided hours ago....

 

[Molinaro]

Telling someone to click a donate button is the not the same thing as telling them that the line in question can be found on another page of the site that you can only reach after clicking the donate button.

Do you really not see the ambiguity in your 1st response to his claim that the line cannot be found on "that page"?

When you tell him to click the donate button you don't even make mention of the fact that you are telling him to do this with respect to finding the quoted line.

After all your talk about how stupid someone has to be to mistakenly click the donate button, which is after all the basis of your defense of the site, I read your request for him to just go ahead and click the donate button as a backhanded way of calling him stupid.

 

[Olowkow]

http://johnlewis4congress.com/

Bottom Line

Hovering the cursor on the large blue rectangle with large white lettering announcing DONATE, causes the appearance of the phrase
.
John Lewis for Congress --- Donate
.
This site will, by its nature, collect money via credit card phone/mail services for the National Republican Congressional Committee and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee, including of course that of John Lewis, one would have to assume.

Therefore, since the site contains the untrue statement above in red that this site is a vehicle for donating to John Lewis, and it's writers most surely knew it to be false, it is in violation of the law, and fraud could likely be easily proven if any money is collected by the RNCC, in my opinion.

No, this is not innocent fun, though the puerile mentality of the ad's creators may not necessarily have envisioned it as a fraud. It is not a hoax, as hoaxes are not for monetary gain. It is fraud, plain and simple, and the RNCC would be well advised to pull down these ads.

As for defending this stuff, good grief.

In fact, if the ploy were argued to be nothing but a satire or a hoax, it would work quite well to include the phrase:

Had enough of John Lewis? Sign up Today

which is in fact in the ad, if the writer were indeed trying to be cleverly getting John Lewis followers to pitch in by agreeing that "NO! We have not had enough of our wonderful John Lewis, and we are adamant that we want to elect him."

A John Lewis fan could very well read much of this ad and think it was very well done irony or satire, à la Colbert, and wind up mistakenly donating to the RNCC. If the RNCC cashes even one penny of the money that accrues to them via this fraud, they are liable.

The claims about John Lewis' supposed wrongdoings seem vague to me (since I'm not privy to the politics involved) and more likely only meaningful to those ensconced in the conservative hermetically sealed bubble. I'm guessing there though.

I could read most of them and just say, "Meh? So what." They think their hot button issues cause panic attacks in the democratic soul I guess.

It's really an excellent example of an attempt at a political dirty trick which could very well backfire big time.

 

[DavidJames]

Instead, we get drama and word games and conspiracy and well forum rules prevent a more accurate description of what we get.

Avid readers are well aware such tactics.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Telling someone to click a donate button is the not the same thing as telling them that the line in question can be found on another page of the site that you can only reach after clicking the donate button.

Do you really not see the ambiguity in your 1st response to his claim that the line cannot be found on "that page"?

When you tell him to click the donate button you don't even make mention of the fact that you are telling him to do this with respect to finding the quoted line.

After all your talk about how stupid someone has to be to mistakenly click the donate button, which is after all the basis of your defense of the site, I read your request for him to just go ahead and click the donate button as a backhanded way of calling him stupid.

Thanks for putting it in clearer terms than I did. I tend to get embroiled with the trollish ones too easily and wind up trying to make points in the argument rather than settling it.

The instructions were confusing and "Christ, click on the ..." sounded to me not as an accusation of stupidity, but more of the "satire" of the piece, e.g. "Just donate to my cause". Too deep? Yeah, possibly, but that's how I read it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

http://johnlewis4congress.com/

Bottom Line

Hovering the cursor on the large blue rectangle with large white lettering announcing DONATE, causes the appearance of the phrase
.
John Lewis for Congress --- Donate
.
This site will, by its nature, collect money via credit card phone/mail services for the National Republican Congressional Committee and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee, including of course that of John Lewis, one would have to assume.

Therefore, since the site contains the untrue statement above in red that this site is a vehicle for donating to John Lewis, and it's writers most surely knew it to be false, it is in violation of the law, and fraud could likely be easily proven if any money is collected by the RNCC, in my opinion.

No, this is not innocent fun, though the puerile mentality of the ad's creators may not necessarily have envisioned it as a fraud. It is not a hoax, as hoaxes are not for monetary gain. It is fraud, plain and simple, and the RNCC would be well advised to pull down these ads.

As for defending this stuff, good grief.

In fact, if the ploy were argued to be nothing but a satire or a hoax, it would work quite well to include the phrase:

which is in fact in the ad, if the writer were indeed trying to be cleverly getting John Lewis followers to pitch in by agreeing that "NO! We have not had enough of our wonderful John Lewis, and we are adamant that we want to elect him."

A John Lewis fan could very well read much of this ad and think it was very well done irony or satire, à la Colbert, and wind up mistakenly donating to the RNCC. If the RNCC cashes even one penny of the money that accrues to them via this fraud, they are liable.

The claims about John Lewis' supposed wrongdoings seem vague to me (since I'm not privy to the politics involved) and more likely only meaningful to those ensconced in the conservative hermetically sealed bubble. I'm guessing there though.

I could read most of them and just say, "Meh? So what." They think their hot button issues cause panic attacks in the democratic soul I guess.

It's really an excellent example of an attempt at a political dirty trick which could very well backfire big time.

I agree that they are likely collecting money on the confusion. Many people, I feel, find the site of their candidate, note the professional appearance and the spiffy photo and just proceed to the donate button if that's why they were looking for it in the first place.

If I was the REAL Lewis, I'd file suit and force them to open their records as to how much they obtained and demand every penny of it, plus damages. In fact, I'd hope that the DNC sends him the lawyers and the funds to do this and I hope they lose and it goes to appeals so this plays long and hard in the media.

Apparently all the post 2012 talk about re-grounding the GOP in reality was just a momentary lapse. They're still the party of "I've got mine so **** you!" and lying and stealing are acceptable to their supporters.

Has a single conservative on these boards come out against this? The silence is pretty indicative.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Having worked and volunteered on internet stuff, it still surprises me how little people read and then write bug reports and complaints afterwards. Someone looking to donate probably won't look beyond the title and the big button. I would love people to do more and actually read instructions, but so often it just doesn't happen. Is it their fault? Maybe. In this case the designer clearly gets a fair portion of the blame.

 

[Stamuel]

That site is dishonest. When you first go to the site, is there any hint initially, even a tiny one, that it is satire? No. None. Not even close. You have to look for a while before getting even the first hints of satire. Consider:



1. The sites' name is almost the same as the official John Lewis site, so you already think you are at his site.

2.The overall look is professional, so again no hint it is not legit. The overall look is positive, no suggestion that it is the site of a villain or satire.

3. On visiting the site, your eyes are immediately drawn to the logo at the top, saying "John Lewis for congress". The logo is pretty well-designed and uses pleasing colors. It is exactly the kind of design that a politician would use to promote himself. There is nothing about it that hints that John Lewis is a bad guy. In fact, the pleasing design gives you a positive impression of him.

4. Your eyes are next drawn to the gigantic "Donate" button. Again, in pleasing colors. Nothing about the button suggests you are not donating to John Lewis. In fact, hovering over it, it tells you it is to donate to John Lewis for congress.

5. The background for the page is a picture, I assume of John Lewis. It is a nice picture of him. He is not scowling, frowning, wild-eyed with rage, sporting devil horns or anything else that a satire site would use to show you how evil John Lewis is. In fact, it is exactly the kind of picture a politician would use to promote himself.

6. Other than the logo and donate button, the text in largest font, right below the donate button, says, "Had enough of John Lewis? Sign up Today." Here we get the very first hint that this might not be a John Lewis site, but it is ambiguous. It merely asks a question. A supporter would answer "No", and could think that signing up is a way to learn more about him. If you only read this far, the evidence is overwhelming that this is a legit John Lewis web site.

7. Now, the next biggest font is a stronger hint that it is satire: "Please come back and visit this site to learn more about why Lewis needs to retire from Washington." I guess this is anti-Lewis. Could someone still mistake it for a pro-Lewis statement? The first three fourths of the sentence set you up to expect something positive about him. Notice the only word that suggests a negative is "retire", which is at the end of the sentence and is extremely weak as an attack. After all, people freely choose to retire; it is generally not a bad thing. You could still think this is from Lewis, and that the site will tell you why he plans to retire (e.g. to work for charity or whatever). Also, misreading that one word "retire" could make the sentence fully positive. Further, they did not go with stronger negative words like "resign", "get kicked out", "be impeached". If they were actually trying to avoid fraud, they would have used something stronger. Why go with something so ridiculously weak as "retire" as the first indication of satire? Because it is fraud, not satire.

8. Finally, there is the body of text. The accusations are weak, again, until the third paragraph. The web site contains so many cues that it is legit and pro-Lewis that you really have to pay attention to notice that the text does not match your strong expectations at this point. It is easy for one to assume the accusations are against Lewis' opponent.



The designers had every opportunity to add obvious cues that this was satire, and at pretty much every turn they avoided them.



In conclusion, this is dishonest ********.

 

[BenBurch]

Funny, I thought honesty was a virtue, not a weakness reserved for losers.

They think we're all named Mark.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The reason I'd have a problem with this is that I see more than enough people that are so partisan that it's easy to see that they'll read nothing but the

gigantic bold text.

and wind up pressing the donate button without reading anything else. Actually, from the posts I've read so far in this thread I think that point has already been verified... Kinda boneheaded that those putting together this satire site wouldn't have thought that through considering that it sets them up for legal repercussions potentially because of that very thing.

I read the site and it's blatantly obvious to me in READING that it's satire, but then again I read the whole thing before pressing any buttons. I obviously cannot say the same for others. It's not like I don't fathom why there would outrage over it, but it would seem like common sense to me that if you're looking at a site that's asking for donations, you would want to read it and make sure it's legit to what your objectives are. The obvious indications are there. I think bad taste and stupidity are accurate for this one, but it's still far too obvious as satire to be anything counting as a scam.

 

[Chaos]

The reason I'd have a problem with this is that I see more than enough people that are so partisan that it's easy to see that they'll read nothing but the

gigantic bold text.

and wind up pressing the donate button without reading anything else. Actually, from the posts I've read so far in this thread I think that point has already been verified... Kinda boneheaded that those putting together this satire site wouldn't have thought that through considering that it sets them up for legal repercussions potentially because of that very thing.

I read the site and it's blatantly obvious to me in READING that it's satire, but then again I read the whole thing before pressing any buttons. I obviously cannot say the same for others. Still the satire is extremely crass and bad taste in my opinion, and probably not obvious enough. Too obvious to me to be an egregious attempt at scamming people, but too stupid to have any positive impact (in fact it would turn people away). Not like I don't fathom why there would outrage over it

How many Democrats do you think are non-partisan enough to read the entire thing and not be fooled?

How many Republicans do you think are non-partisan enough to believe that Democrats might read the entire thing and not be fooled?

My conclusion is, the whole thing is designed to fool people, with just enough "outs" to make reasonable sure a court can´t prove it isn´t satire.

 

[The Big Dog]

That site is dishonest. When you first go to the site, is there any hint initially, even a tiny one, that it is satire? No. None. Not even close. You have to look for a while before getting even the first hints of satire. Consider:



1. The sites' name is almost the same as the official John Lewis site, so you already think you are at his site.

2.The overall look is professional, so again no hint it is not legit. The overall look is positive, no suggestion that it is the site of a villain or satire.

3. On visiting the site, your eyes are immediately drawn to the logo at the top, saying "John Lewis for congress". The logo is pretty well-designed and uses pleasing colors. It is exactly the kind of design that a politician would use to promote himself. There is nothing about it that hints that John Lewis is a bad guy. In fact, the pleasing design gives you a positive impression of him.

4. Your eyes are next drawn to the gigantic "Donate" button. Again, in pleasing colors. Nothing about the button suggests you are not donating to John Lewis. In fact, hovering over it, it tells you it is to donate to John Lewis for congress.

5. The background for the page is a picture, I assume of John Lewis. It is a nice picture of him. He is not scowling, frowning, wild-eyed with rage, sporting devil horns or anything else that a satire site would use to show you how evil John Lewis is. In fact, it is exactly the kind of picture a politician would use to promote himself.

6. Other than the logo and donate button, the text in largest font, right below the donate button, says, "Had enough of John Lewis? Sign up Today." Here we get the very first hint that this might not be a John Lewis site, but it is ambiguous. It merely asks a question. A supporter would answer "No", and could think that signing up is a way to learn more about him. If you only read this far, the evidence is overwhelming that this is a legit John Lewis web site.

7. Now, the next biggest font is a stronger hint that it is satire: "Please come back and visit this site to learn more about why Lewis needs to retire from Washington." I guess this is anti-Lewis. Could someone still mistake it for a pro-Lewis statement? The first three fourths of the sentence set you up to expect something positive about him. Notice the only word that suggests a negative is "retire", which is at the end of the sentence and is extremely weak as an attack. After all, people freely choose to retire; it is generally not a bad thing. You could still think this is from Lewis, and that the site will tell you why he plans to retire (e.g. to work for charity or whatever). Also, misreading that one word "retire" could make the sentence fully positive. Further, they did not go with stronger negative words like "resign", "get kicked out", "be impeached". If they were actually trying to avoid fraud, they would have used something stronger. Why go with something so ridiculously weak as "retire" as the first indication of satire? Because it is fraud, not satire.

8. Finally, there is the body of text. The accusations are weak, again, until the third paragraph. The web site contains so many cues that it is legit and pro-Lewis that you really have to pay attention to notice that the text does not match your strong expectations at this point. It is easy for one to assume the accusations are against Lewis' opponent.



The designers had every opportunity to add obvious cues that this was satire, and at pretty much every turn they avoided them.



In conclusion, this is dishonest ********.

Wow that was a ton of words to avoid quoting this:

"John Lewis is bad for Montana"

for example.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My conclusion is, the whole thing is designed to fool people, with just enough "outs" to make reasonable sure a court can´t prove it isn´t satire.

Well if their plan is to scam people and leave enough wiggle room to avoid legal troubles arising from that, I think they've done a terrible job at it.

 

[Chaos]

Well if their plan is to scam people and leave enough wiggle room to avoid legal troubles arising from that, I think they've done a terrible job at it.

I didn´t say they were good at it.

But based on the assumption that Democrats are all moronic, blindly partisan hacks who will believe ANYTHING that looks superficially liberal, and that all proper judges - not the activist kind who have the gall to disagree with Republicans - will swallow their "it´s satire" excuse hook, line, sinker and proverbial rowboat... based on that, it´s pretty darn freaking brilliant.

 

[Unabogie]

They think we're all named Mark.

But you'd still think that "ha, ha, stupid LIEBRULS fell for it!" would fail to meet even the barest definition of integrity. I get why some GOP hacks did this. I don't get why people are defending it. Doesn't honor count for anything in Conservatopia anymore?

 

[The_Animus]

Wow that was a ton of words to avoid quoting this:

"John Lewis is bad for Montana"

for example.

16.5 at what point does something like this become no longer acceptable in your eyes? Should I have to wade through 10, 50, 100 pages of text to find one line that let's me know the entire thing is bogus?

What if that text is put in really small letters at the bottom and in a colored text which nearly mirrors the background color such that it's practically impossible to see? It's probably my fault for not using a magnifying glass or highlighting the entire webpage just in case they use such dirty tricks.

What about if it's not on the website at all but hidden as a note inside the source text? Is that the responsibility of the user to check all that to make extra sure?

So really? At what point does it become blatantly dishonest and unacceptable?

I bet it's when democrats do it.

 

[NoahFence]

I wish we'd stop referring to it as a satire site. A satire site would imply humor, wouldn't it? These sites are designed to dupe.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I wish we'd stop referring to it as a satire site. A satire site would imply humor, wouldn't it?

I call it what it is; The spin doesn't change that. It doesn't need to be a scam to put voters off in case people have forgotten. The fact that it was done extremely poorly shuts off its appeal more than enough without having to distort the facts surrounding it.

 

[elbe]

I call it what it is; The spin doesn't change that. It doesn't need to be a scam to put voters off in case people have forgotten. The fact that it was done extremely poorly shuts off its appeal more than enough without having to distort the facts surrounding it.

I really don't think satire is the right word. It's basically just an attack ad with a deceptive veneer.

I also notice that there is now a "this site is paid for..." notice at the bottom. They've obviously taken steps to make it less deceptive.