Fake 'Democrat' websites that actually make you donate to the Republican side.

[werepossum]

hard to protect low information voters from themselves. nothing illegal found.

True, but it doesn't speak well of the GOP candidates that the best way to raise money for them is to not actually mention them.

and as proof that the republicans think Americans are able to read. Democrats believe they are too stupid to read.

Democrats are correct, at least for their own contributors. See below . . .

Is Obamacare reducing our health care costs by reducing the required educational standards to become a doctor?

Is he as thorough reading prescription drug instructions as he is reading websites? I mean, mess up on drug info like doses and frequency, people die. You'd think someone who's job it is to pay extremely close attention to detail, would have noticed the print on the website describing exactly what its purpose is.

Well, yeah, but OTHER people. If Doctor Bellamy is writing himself a prescription he is probably a LOT more careful. Then again, if he's a doctor and he's contributing to Democrats (or more properly, trying to contribute to Democrats) maybe he's not nearly as careful about writing himself scrips as prudence would suggest . . .

On the other hand, it doesn't say what kind of doctor. Maybe he's a Glass Doctor. Or a Doctor of Women's Studies. Or a Doctor of Poetry. Maybe he's hoping to get a government grant to fund his poem emergency room . . .

 

[hans030390]

I'd guess what they're doing is legal, but it all walks the fine line that makes me think they were intentionally set up to lure careless Democrats into donating for someone other than the person they thought they were donating to. If so, I'd say the tactics are sleazy and show some desperation. I only read one brief article on the subject, but the quotes they gave from someone behind this campaign made it clear they knew prior to publishing the sites that this would happen (their defense was that they offer refunds). It is important to note that some sites contain less obvious text than others, to the point where it is quite reasonable to consider a situation where one skips over the text (i.e. it is not immediately clear they are satire). Some, like the Pelosi site, are much more obvious.

Stupidity and carelessness is not a trait inherent to Republicans, Democrats, or otherwise. Any "side" has plenty of members that would fall for sites like these. And I'm sure if you set up a study that tracked eye and mouse-pointer movements, you'd see a trend of many skipping over most of the text and going straight for the donate button (these sort of studies are common with website design and analysis).

Does that all make it right to (possibly) knowingly prey on the stupid, careless, and gullible?

Given that this is politics, I can't say I'm particularly surprised something like this happened. Still, seeing this sort of activity from ANY party disappoints me.

 

[Vic]

It might be legal, but it's also sleazy and dishonest. But hey, if that's what you want to be known for, don't let me stop you.

 

[compuwiz1]

It might be legal, but it's also sleazy and dishonest. But hey, if that's what you want to be known for, don't let me stop you.

Just stop with the nonsense now! Sleazy is the democrat's middle name. They hold the crown. Distort, deflect, dither, blame, lie, smash, grab......it goes on and on. You got a problem with that? Go tell Joe Pesci. I'm sure he can set you right.....with a whack or two.

Joe is a republican. I'd love to hear him give a gumbah like you a piece or two.

 

[Ausm]

Scumbags will do anything to win.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It might be legal, but it's also sleazy and dishonest. But hey, if that's what you want to be known for, don't let me stop you.

I looked at the site and what I saw was mocking more than anything else, but then again I read

Personally I find it to be more of what I expect, which is to say disappointment, more than anything else. What's worse is that it will almost certainly catch a few and if there were grounds for disenfranchisement, being so clueless and careless as to go all the way through the process and donate could be justification. There's little that would convince me that someone who did so would spend a moment in thoughtful consideration of what they are told. Naturally this would apply to anyone of any party.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Read My Lips...No New Taxes.

It's good to see you quoting Obama.

 

[Anarchist420]

remember how Sarvis got on the VA ballot? well, i wouldnt put it past hillary clinton's supporters to pull something similar against Rand Paul.

 

[unokitty]

It might be legal, but it's also sleazy and dishonest. But hey, if that's what you want to be known for, don't let me stop you.

To paraphrase a famous politician...

If you like your 'sleazy and dishonest,' you can keep your 'sleazy and dishonest.'