NRCC is proud of their idea to create fake Dem websites

[Molinaro]

CNN has a story about the National Republican Congressional Campaign's digital team's bright idea to create fake Democratic websites as a way of getting their message out.

They bought up 100s of web addresses with names for lesser known Democratic candidates and put up sites that mimic the real ones.

"Well, we are very proud of this program.”

Proud of it? I consider it to be disgusting behavior.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Example given: http://johnlewis4congress.com/

John Lewis is tired of sitting on the sidelines watching his boss, longtime liberal crusader Max Baucus, get all the credit for advancing President Obama’s out-of-touch agenda, including ObamaCare. But despite being ObamaCare’s “chief architect,” Baucus hasn’t had any problem trying to distance himself from the law earlier this year, saying he sees “a huge train wreck coming.” Will John Lewis put himself at odds with the President now that he’ll be in the spotlight? Or will he stand by the disastrous bill his boss helped to craft?

That's... just bad. Who wrote that?

The big donate button also doesn't make it clear who you are donating to.

 

[Tricky]

Proud of blatant dishonesty and deceptiveness. How can anyone respect these people?

 

[The Big Dog]

Proud of blatant dishonesty and deceptiveness. How can anyone respect these people?

You read the blatantly anti candidate website, right?

"John Lewis is bad for Montana:

After more than a decade working under Baucus, John Lewis has pocketed over $568,000 of taxpayers’ money

Lewis has been laying the groundwork for his campaign by visiting every county in Montana on the taxpayers’ dime

Lewis has spent nearly 12 years working under Baucus and was a top aide to the “chief architect” of Obamcare

Photo was taken by Eliza Wiley

Please come back and visit this site to learn more about why Lewis needs to retire from Washington."

Pretty clear....

 

[NoahFence]

Proud of blatant dishonesty and deceptiveness. How can anyone respect these people?

And that blatant dishonesty is what's really going to send this country down the tubes. Not Teh Gayyz, not OMG BENGHAZI!!! not cold, dead hands or any of that.

Dishonesty.

 

[The Big Dog]

And that blatant dishonesty is what's really going to send this country down the tubes. Not Teh Gayyz, not OMG BENGHAZI!!! not cold, dead hands or any of that.

Dishonesty.

Ah, you saw Obama's interview before the Super Bowl huh?

 

[Tricky]

You read the blatantly anti candidate website, right?

"John Lewis is bad for Montana:

After more than a decade working under Baucus, John Lewis has pocketed over $568,000 of taxpayers’ money

Lewis has been laying the groundwork for his campaign by visiting every county in Montana on the taxpayers’ dime

Lewis has spent nearly 12 years working under Baucus and was a top aide to the “chief architect” of Obamcare

Photo was taken by Eliza Wiley

Please come back and visit this site to learn more about why Lewis needs to retire from Washington."

Pretty clear....

No, not clear at all. Any time you disguise a site as one that is for a candidate when it is actually against them, it is dishonest. Here on the forum, it is against the rules to post using another member's name. Apparently the GOP has no such ethics.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, not clear at all. Any time you disguise a site as one that is for a candidate when it is actually against them, it is dishonest. Here on the forum, it is against the rules to post using another member's name. Apparently the GOP has no such ethics.

Forum rules are not ethical rules. Cripes, Obama's former chief of staff would not have lasted a day here, what with the swearing.

It is clearly a satire site. The best thing to do is *********** roll with it.

Hey, what is with those asterisks! Lolz.

 

[SezMe]

It is clearly a satire site. The best thing to do is *********** roll with it.

I don't think it is clear at all. But let's suppose for the sake of the discussion you are right. Why is the RNC investing time, money and personnel putting up satire web sites when they should be devoting all their resources to getting their candidates elected.

 

[Tricky]

Forum rules are not ethical rules. Cripes, Obama's former chief of staff would not have lasted a day here, what with the swearing.

It is clearly a satire site. The best thing to do is *********** roll with it.

Hey, what is with those asterisks! Lolz.

No, it is not "clearly a satire site" because there is nothing in the intro that marks it as such, and even real satire sites fool people. These days, half of Snopes is refuting something in The Onion or something else that somebody took seriously, even though they clearly claim they are satire sites. But these sites don't do this. They put their source in tiny print, just like a dishonest insurance salesman would do. How can you possibly defend them?

 

[Unabogie]

No, it is not "clearly a satire site" because there is nothing in the intro that marks it as such, and even real satire sites fool people. These days, half of Snopes is refuting something in The Onion or something else that somebody took seriously, even though they clearly claim they are satire sites. But these sites don't do this. They put their source in tiny print, just like a dishonest insurance salesman would do. How can you possibly defend them?

Rank partisanship?

 

[tyr_13]

Forum rules are not ethical rules. Cripes, Obama's former chief of staff would not have lasted a day here, what with the swearing. It is clearly a satire site. The best thing to do is *********** roll with it.

Hey, what is with those asterisks! Lolz.

That's pretty damn funny.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it is not "clearly a satire site" because there is nothing in the intro that marks it as such, and even real satire sites fool people. These days, half of Snopes is refuting something in The Onion or something else that somebody took seriously, even though they clearly claim they are satire sites. But these sites don't do this. They put their source in tiny print, just like a dishonest insurance salesman would do. How can you possibly defend them?

I'm certain that you are not getting he concept of satire. They do not have to "mark it in the intro as such."

The print also is not tiny. The only thing that is even remotely confusing is the title and web site name. If democrats don't read the actual site, hell they should probably not even be voting, amirite?

 

[uke2se]

Rank partisanship?

Nailed it.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Nailed it.

Avid readers of this thread agree.

 

[NoahFence]

Ah, you saw Obama's interview before the Super Bowl huh?

Nope. I was on a beer run.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Rank partisanship?

And like clockwork, too.

 

[NoahFence]

Check the dishonesty from the extreme right group ForAmerica that is on the other thread.
The image says the government spent 200,000,000 during the half hour long halftime show. They put it up on a photo of the halftime show. Subtle difference is they didn't actually say the government spent all that ON the Halftime show, just during.

80 percent of respondents read it wrong, that the government spent it ON the super bowl, and based their responses accordingly. The morons that made that image know damn well they are being dishonest. These are the same people behind this website program.

Congrats. Your grand old party is being taken over by INTERNET TROLLS.

It's actually happening.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nailed it.

I guess. I on the other hand don't think that democrats from Montana are idiots, which seems to be the assumption in this thread.

 

[Corsair 115]

I can't but help wonder if 16.5 would be so forgiving of this if it was instead Republican candidates being smeared by fake web sites put up by the Democratic party.