NRCC is proud of their idea to create fake Dem websites

[NoahFence]

And yet we've established with no room for doubt that there are A LOT of idiots in this country. Headline reading, content optional idiots.

That's the target of these deceptive and democracy killing websites.

 

[CORed]

This is why the Rebuplican party continues to confuse me. "Yes, we're the party of high moral standards and deceitful websites. We're the party of bigger business and the 98%. We're the party of individual freedoms unless it's taking Christianity out of anything." It's a shame because fiscial conservatives and libertarians need representatives who aren't ◊◊◊◊◊◊* insane.

^^^^ This. I'm not crazy about the Democrats' excessive spending or the notion that every problem, real or imagined can be fixed by a multi-billion dollar social program, but I simply can't vote for most Republicans these days. Their reactionary social agenda, and general disconnect with reality (e. g. climate change denial) makes it unthinkable.

 

[BenBurch]

Sleazy no matter who does it.

Says a lot about the people who do it, none of it complimentary.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Likewise about those who condone/excuse it.

 

[AlBell]

Not hilarious. This is crossing the line into sleaze.

But of course, you're A-OK with it so long as you win. That's all that matters.

Seems to work ok for democrats.

 

[BenBurch]

Seems to work ok for democrats.

We have a web site that pretends to be accepting donations for a Republican?

Tell me where so I can read them the riot act.

 

[SezMe]

What is sleazy? A web site clearly and solely devoted to defeating political opponents, or the over the top reactions that are based on patent misrepresentations of the web sites content, and are further based on the assumption that the people visiting the site are woefully and actively ignorant?

The former.

What if the Democrats did the same thing to a republican candidate from Montana? My answer would be the same as I gave on page 1: "I on the other hand don't think that democrats Republicans from Montana are idiots, which seems to be the assumption in this thread."

I thought you didn't engage in hypotheticals.

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought you didn't engage in hypotheticals.

Bwhahahahhaha! Oh man, oh man!

People bitterly complain that I won't answer absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals, then when I actually respond to a hypothetical situation, I get attacked for it.

Beautiful!

Heads you win, tails I lose.

But as long as you win. Hee hee!

 

[Trakar]

Bwhahahahhaha! Oh man, oh man!

People bitterly complain that I won't answer absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals, then when I actually respond to a hypothetical situation, I get attacked for it.

Beautiful!

Heads you win, tails I lose.

But as long as you win. Hee hee!

ROFLOL I love it when people caught trying to have their cake and eat it too, complain about being picked on by everybody!

 

[The Big Dog]

ROFLOL I love it when people caught trying to have their cake and eat it too, complain about being picked on by everybody!

I wasn't complaining, sport, I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

Missed that, huh? "ROFLOL" indeed.

lolz

 

[NoahFence]

We have a web site that pretends to be accepting donations for a Republican?

Tell me where so I can read them the riot act.

Ditto.

 

[NoahFence]

Bwhahahahhaha! Oh man, oh man!

People bitterly complain that I won't answer absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals, then when I actually respond to a hypothetical situation, I get attacked for it.

Beautiful!

Heads you win, tails I lose.

But as long as you win. Hee hee!

I read it more as an observation than an attack.

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers saw a perfectly acceptable question in there.

Anything to avoid answering the simple question, "how much is too much" as it pertains to GOP dishonesty.

Avid readers are still waiting to see where that line actually is!

(or even if it exists at all)

I read it more as an observation than an attack.

Sounds legit.

 

[Trakar]

I wasn't complaining, sport, I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

Missed that, huh? "ROFLOL" indeed.

lolz

And I suppose you weren't meaning insult by calling me "sport," and others "hypocrites?"

If it were anyone else, I might be surprised.

 

[The Big Dog]

And I suppose you weren't meaning insult by calling me "sport," and others "hypocrites?"

If it were anyone else, I might be surprised.

No they were not insults, just "observations."

sorry you are not, ahem, "ROFLOL" at my expense anymore. Indeed, it appears that you have taken a 180 degree turn from:

to

That is too bad.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What if it's bullfrog soup?

You use the legs, not the whole frog.

 

[The Big Dog]

Rant Snipped

I explained in the other thread that the link was not working on the device I was on. I also posted in that same post that based on the research I conducted, the claim was fraudulent for the reasons explained therein.

Cross posting in different threads is frowned upon, The Animus.

 

[BenBurch]

Ditto.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that one...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Point #1:
I still don't see the evidence that this is a scam website. It IS however akin to a "troll website" poking fun at the competition; AND it was designed precisely to get these kinds of overreactions.

In that context... I can understand outrage with it. It's standard procedure for some people I get into a debate with to push my buttons some how or some way to make it very hard to have the discussion. I don't think it's kosher to support doing the same thing .

Point #2:
I know I'm going to hammered for this but about the only thing useful besides pointing out a form of dirty campaigning, I glean from the thread thus far is that it's proven itself to be a case study of typical politics at work.... both for the corny and crass campaign practices that some groups employ... and for dramatization and outrageous exaggerations of motivation that people imagine for them. In this case I think enough was clear from the context what it was and what it wasn't.

POINT #3:
Chances are if the practices employed on the site's making offended you enough or gave you indications that they don't have your interests in mind... you're probably not voting for the candidate, and you vote for who you want/think is better suited.

 

[Molinaro]

When a website asks you to give them money it cannot in any way shape or form be written of as satire. It is absolutely preposterous to try it pass it off as some kind of joke.

When you hover over the donate button and get a popup text saying "John Lewis For Congress----Contribute", that is a scam because the text does not match the reality.