[US Politics] Republicans setup 'fake pro-democrat candidate websites'

[Vyxn]

I hadn't noticed the link in the article, and to be fair they skirt the lines, but they are misrepresenting the context in their ad space in Google searches.

how is it misrepresenting? unless you expect to only receive positive information about a democrat candidate when you do a search using the candidates name

[ringpriest]

was in the process of reading all the post and commenting on them as I go. now that I have read through the post here is what I have to add. I don't see anything wrong or deceiving. No where on those sites does it say they are official site in support of the democrat candidate or imply as much. Just a site with information about the candidate yes the information provided is not flattering to the democrat candidate but unless that information is wrong or a lie it is just that information the public should have access to

here is one of the sites from the article
http://johnlewis4congress.com/
as you can see they didn't try to hide the fact the site is from the NRCC says so as much at the bottom

Except that putting a small disclaimer at the bottom is pretty much exactly trying to hide the fact that the site is from the NRCC. They don't even have any references or links for the claims they're making. It may be technically legal, but it's still a massive violation of Wheaton's law.

[Vyxn]

So you think its ok to dress up a site like its an official site, then try to spread disinformation/sling mud on the site and ask for donations for the opponent? Seems pretty filthy to me, but the mudslinging that goes on instead of espousing of virtues in the US seems pretty filthy to me anyway. And yes, both sides do it, I'm not saying they don't.

- - - Updated - - -



Ballot access is a real mess in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

if the information is wrong or a lie then it is a problem but you or no one has made any proof as much

- - - Updated - - -

Except that putting a small disclaimer at the bottom is pretty much exactly trying to hide the fact that the site is from the NRCC. They don't even have any references or links for the claims they're making. It may be technically legal, but it's still a massive violation of Wheaton's law.

it is not a small disclaimer its text is as large as all the other text and even circled in a box it is plain as the nose on your face There wasn't not one attempt to hide the creator of the site is or even imply the illusion of such. take a look for your self

http://johnlewis4congress.com/

Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.nrcc.org

[Crissi]

Those fake sites left me awfully confused on what it is they want to accomplish. If Im this confused, I cant imagine how the more easily fooled would think. I think its fairly immoral to pull a bait and switch like this.

[Sunaka]

how is it misrepresenting? unless you expect to only receive positive information about a democrat candidate when you do a search using the candidates name

It actually implies there's policy info through the link. That's a misrepresentation, albeit a small one. Don't defend the sites like they're good, honest, or acceptable practice; they're not, no matter who makes them.

if the information is wrong or a lie then it is a problem but you or no one has made any proof as much

The site includes no citations. Burden of proof is on the accuser. There is none, and without it they are attack sites at best. One of the bullets states something with no context (fearmongering and appealing to prejudice) and one basically accuses of embezzlement. Without a single link except to Twitter or RNCC, too. It's also portraying a quote out of context and implying intents of the candidate; again, attack site crap.

[ringpriest]

I am completely incorrect and don't know what I'm talking about, and present biased information in a blatantly pro-Republican fashion.
- - - Updated - - -

it is not a small disclaimer its text is as large as all the other text and even circled in a box it is plain as the nose on your face There wasn't not one attempt to hide the creator of the site is or even imply the illusion of such. take a look for your self

http://johnlewis4congress.com/

It's still buried at the bottom of the page beyond the scroll down, below the 'donate' form, twitter link, and (laughably named) privacy policy. If they were interested in being remotely honest (instead of precisely as dishonest as the law allows) then the disclaimer would be right under the banner at the top.

Also, you completely failed to address the site's lack of references (html links, printed materials, or even time and place) to the attacks made on the candidate. Heck, they may even be true, but 1) failing to source them, and 2) making it appear to be from the candiate, make the whole thing rather sleazy.

I'm not sure if it's more sad or troubling (maybe both) that the National Republican Congressional Committee is convinced their candidate in a 'red' state won't be able to win on their own merits.

I edited your quoted text above solely to make a point. I'm sure you don't mind since I'm putting in this disclaimer in the same font size as the rest of this post.

[Sunaka]

I'm not sure if it's more sad or troubling (maybe both) that the National Republican Congressional Committee is convinced their candidate in a 'red' state won't be able to win on their own merits.

Note that their justification site link was openly an attack site, not the same thing. And also a state PAC.

[Captain N]

I think these sites are setup in the same way the EULA Agreements are set up when we play an online game for the first time. We may catch a few of the big words, or skim through it but for the most part we just click OK so we can get to our game. Sites like this are targeting people too dumb to read what they've clicked on but then again isn't that the usual Republican idea? Make Americans focus on something that they think is beneficial while actually doing the opposite...like how Obamacare will cause the end of the world.

[Sunaka]

like how Obamacare will cause the end of the world.

What, you don't idolize Doomsday Preppers?

[Krez]

It will be labeled as a right wing nation dealing with regressives slandering the vast majority of the nation while wondering why their bigoted views aren't embraced. Meanwhile the other right wing party (although not as right) is going to emerge as the only party, then split, leading to (hopefully) actual left wing and right wing parties.

Indeed, total agreement. The difference between republican and democrats are not as far apart as many would like to believe or have been blinded too. History texts looking back at this period will hopefully point out that both parties have fascist, centralist/federalist, authoritarian tendencies. Folks seem to just get caught up on a few social issues which they think divide them.

[Roxinius]

Funny thing is on this forum had the dems done this nothing would be said by half of you

[Bolson13]

Funny thing is on this forum had the dems done this nothing would be said by half of you

If half wouldn't say anything, wouldn't that make that half democrats? And the ones that DO say something republican? That means the forum is a 50/50 split.

Sorry, I am annoying, I know.

[Roxinius]

If half wouldn't say anything, wouldn't that make that half democrats? And the ones that DO say something republican? That means the forum is a 50/50 split.

Sorry, I am annoying, I know.

i was more implying half of the people who are speaking out against it in this thread forgive me i haven't had my coffee yet

[Bolson13]

i was more implying half of the people who are speaking out against it in this thread forgive me i haven't had my coffee yet

I know, like I said, I was just being annoying.

Enjoy your coffee!

[Eviscero]

There are plenty of absolutely arbitrary laws in US that make running as a third party candidate nigh impossible. Like, your name would not even be on a ballot kind of impossible.

Why were there like 18 options for president in 2012 including Roseanne Barr? What are you even talking about?

[ringpriest]

Why were there like 18 options for president in 2012 including Roseanne Barr? What are you even talking about?

From Wikipedia, "Nationally, ballot access laws are the major challenge to third party candidacies. While the Democratic and Republican parties usually easily obtain ballot access in all fifty states in every election, third parties often fail to meet criteria for ballot access, such as registration fees. Or, in many states, they do not meet petition requirements in which a certain number of voters must sign a petition for a third party or independent candidate to gain ballot access."

In terms of real change, stunt candidacies for President (who very seldom get on the ballot in all states) matter far less than electing State and local officials. Additionally, there's the United State's near-universal 'first past the post' elections which is strongly biased in favor of the established two parties. Adopting instant-runoff voting or any of several other alternatives in use around the world would substantially boost third party voting.

[Sunaka]

In terms of real change, stunt candidacies for President (who very seldom get on the ballot in all states) matter far less than electing State and local officials. Additionally, there's the United State's near-universal 'first past the post' elections which is strongly biased in favor of the established two parties. Adopting instant-runoff voting or any of several other alternatives in use around the world would substantially boost third party voting.

Loved this video when I saw it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

[mvaliz]

Funny thing is on this forum had the dems done this nothing would be said by half of you

Funny thing is the Dems didn't do this.

Funny thing is that if they did, you have a plethora of people here, from Vyxn, Thunderaan, The Riddler, ect who would be the FIRST to post up a thread about this.

You, Roxinius, might also be one of them. :P

[Sunseeker]

It's that libel and therefore, obviously illegal?

[Rukentuts]

RNC being underhanded in elections? Say it isn't so!

Voter ID laws say hi.