• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

NRCC is proud of their idea to create fake Dem websites

Molinaro said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's like pretending that when the mostly-undressed hooker leans into your car and asks if you "want a date" that it was a legitimate offer of friendship.
 
Molinaro said:
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.
Click to expand...

On the John Lewis example I went a step further and clicked the "donate button". Here's what loaded for me:

DCqfcJbl.jpg


So pardon when I again reiterate that if this is supposed to be a scam, it's pretty stupid for the NRCC to plaster their name all over it like it's screaming in my face. Really, the only way people miss this is by being blind, they made it THAT obvious it took me less than 2 minutes to catch on. A real scam site wouldn't be this crass and obvious.

And again I don't endorse their choosing of this campaign approach, but instead of talking about how they're not interested in bipartisan cooperation and unity (which the site also makes obvious), people are screaming bloody murder that this is a scam when it pretty much lays everything out on a silver platter before you even start filling in bank info to put money into it. I lost count of how many times this simple issue was mentioned by some posters already, but seeing as politics' memory is short term and rhetoric never dies I don't expect much to change about what people in this thread had already put forth. You guys can continue arguing the red herring of "criminal scam", but in this case I plan to make my decisions on this based on the facts, and vote accordingly.

There's nothing more for me to say on the john lewis examole unless the other sites make an acrive effort to hide their origins
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
On the John Lewis example I went a step further and clicked the "donate button". Here's what loaded for me:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/DCqfcJbl.jpg[/qimg]

So pardon when I again reiterate that if this is supposed to be a scam, it's pretty stupid for the NRCC to plaster their name all over it like it's screaming in my face. Really, the only way people miss this is by being blind, they made it THAT obvious it took me less than 2 minutes to catch on. A real scam site wouldn't be this crass and obvious.

And again I don't endorse their choosing of this campaign approach, but instead of talking about how they're not interested in bipartisan cooperation and unity (which the site also makes obvious), people are screaming bloody murder that this is a scam when it pretty much lays everything out on a silver platter before you even start filling in bank info to put money into it. I lost count of how many times this simple issue was mentioned by some posters already, but seeing as politics' memory is short term and rhetoric never dies I don't expect much to change about what people in this thread had already put forth. You guys can continue arguing the red herring of "criminal scam", but in this case I plan to make my decisions on this based on the facts, and vote accordingly.

There's nothing more for me to say on the john lewis examole unless the other sites make an acrive effort to hide their origins
Click to expand...

If you go back a couple of pages in this thread, you will see that that page is not what originally came up. So apparently, they've amended it so that at least the second page is a tad more honest. It's a whole different layout, font and group of colors. That is NOT what it looked like three days ago.

I assume 16.5 will be back to explain to us how funny it is that all the complaints generally rang true to someone who realized that they had the appearance of snake oil salesmen. Now it's only moderately sleazy. Before it was double-sleazy.

??? Does anyone do the "Wayback Machine"? Can you find the original of the second page? I am technically challenged, to put it mildly.
 
Foolmewunz said:
??? Does anyone do the "Wayback Machine"? Can you find the original of the second page? I am technically challenged, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

The way back when archive crawled the site but it didn't archive the donation page from before. And the link that was there (https://www.nrcc.org/john-lewis-for-congress/contribute/) just redirects to the main index now.

Here if you're interested in looking: http://web.archive.org/web/20140209034549/http://johnlewis4congress.com/

EDIT:
I imagine what you were referring to looked more like this: http://www.newsfiber.com/p/s/m?msg=C6x3+jA64F4=

Though I still feel that the disclaimers were fairly obvious, this places context on what people were saying earlier in the thread. Yeah... still gonna say "scam" goes too far... but ethically questionable certainly qualifies considering the confusion that was still foreseeable. I'll remember this in the event that it involves a candidate I'm considering in the future
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Though I still feel that the disclaimers were fairly obvious, this places context on what people were saying earlier in the thread. Yeah... still gonna say "scam" goes too far, but ethically questionable certainly qualifies. I'll remember this in the event that it involves a candidate I'm considering in the future
Click to expand...

For what it's worth there are occasions where local candidate that deceptive strategies like these are "supporting" don't actually agree with the tactics being used.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I assume 16.5 will be back to explain to us how funny it is that all the complaints generally rang true to someone who realized that they had the appearance of snake oil salesmen. Now it's only moderately sleazy. Before it was double-sleazy.

??? Does anyone do the "Wayback Machine"? Can you find the original of the second page? I am technically challenged, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? I usually ignore fallacies of assumption like yours. If i were to engage in speculation, I would speculate that they consolidated the websites for the individual candidates. The previous versions said, ie, "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat John Lewis and candidates like him." Looks like the message is equally clear.

On the other hand, given you inability to find the website that I repeatedly described, it appears that we are of one mind regarding your technical abilities!
 
16.5 said:
I answered this hours ago. You responded with an insipid cartoon. I can see that you are going to persist in this line of "argument."

Thanks for posting.....
Click to expand...

So...
That quote you provided is supposed to answer the question 'how much is too much'?

Seriously?
Wow. Okee doke. Moving on.....
 
16.5 said:
Why would I do that? I usually ignore fallacies of assumption like yours. If i were to engage in speculation, I would speculate that they consolidated the websites for the individual candidates. The previous versions said, ie, "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat John Lewis and candidates like him." Looks like the message is equally clear.

On the other hand, given you inability to find the website that I repeatedly described, it appears that we are of one mind regarding your technical abilities!
Click to expand...

Oh, but you do go on, 16.5. Do you think constantly repeating your assertions will make them true? Or do you just try to last-word everyone to death until they give up on trying to converse with you? Avid readers of this thread understand exactly what happened with the "inability to find the website...". But you keep at it, okay? You're entertaining on an overcast weekend. Wrong, but entertaining.

For someone who doesn't do hypotheticals, you're sure doing a lot of hypothesizing. First you claimed to understand the way every voter in Montana thinks and read websites. Now you surmise that they didn't change the page because it was sleazy and undignified, but because they're merely consolidating all their bogus sites because.... Why is that, again? They want them all to look the same so it will be clear? That sounds as though they realize the adverts were unclear.
 
It is interesting to see how so-called "critical thinking" is being used, here, to display a complete and absolute lack of morals and ethics, and a policy suborned completely by achieving power for the Christian Taliban.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Now you surmise that they didn't change the page because it was sleazy and undignified, but because they're merely consolidating all their bogus sites because.... Why is that, again? They want them all to look the same so it will be clear? That sounds as though they realize the adverts were unclear.
Click to expand...
The change was done because somebody likely figured out that there would be evident problems once people started making donations for the wrong candidate. It's really not something that a simple refund would make it go away. Its a pity since this is something that should have already been accounted for when choosing to go this route. I think the damage is already done
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The change was done because somebody likely figured out that there would be evident problems once people started making donations for the wrong candidate. It's really not something that a simple refund would make it go away. Its a pity since this is something that should have already been accounted for when choosing to go this route. I think the damage is already done
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but you seem to have wandered into the wrong thread. You're not supposed to see both sides of an issue. This is USA Politics. There can be only one!
 
16.5 said:
The previous versions said, ie, "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat John Lewis and candidates like him." Looks like the message is equally clear.
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz said:
They want them all to look the same so it will be clear? That sounds as though they realize the adverts were unclear.
Click to expand...

I've already stated my position. Your speculation is based on an erroneous assumption.
 
16.5 said:
I've already stated my position. Your speculation is based on an erroneous assumption.
Click to expand...

And your speculation is based on your erroneous assumption. But since there can be only one, I'm right and you're wrong. La la la la caaaaaaan't heeeear you!
 
16.5 said:
I wasn't speculating. obviously.
Click to expand...

No. Of course not. You were speaking The Truth...

































....















.....








.... As you see it.

I keep forgetting that. Your hypothetical arguments are based on information unavailable to the mortal man. The rest of us just have opinions and speculation. I'm sorry. I'll try to do better, next time. As avid readers of this thread will recognize, I'm all for harmony. Witness the clever allusion to Paul Simon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom