Slashdot Mirror
Dirty Tricks? Look-Alike Websites Lure Congressional Donors
First time accepted submitter AdamnSelene writes "Forbes reports on a National Republican Congressional Committee sanctioned campaign worthy of the NSA: fake candidate websites that use identical or similar pictures and color schemes to solicit donations to defeat the Democratic candidate. The Tampa Bay Times reports that the NRCC initially refused to refund the contribution from a Tampa Bay doctor who caught onto the scam, and he had to contact his credit card company to challenge the charges. The National Journal reports that the NRCC-sponsored effort may run afoul of Federal Election Commission regulations, though it expects that the bipartisan FEC will be toothless when it comes to enforcement. However, I have to wonder whether this is finally a good enough reason to use the DMCA and file take-down notices against the faux websites. Perhaps the candidates could solve this themselves, and get a judgement for copyright infringement so absurdly large that it puts the NRCC out of business?" Some sites along these lines might be dirtier than the ones here illustrated, which seem to fit pretty well into the broad world of snarky and cutting political ads; Dr. Ray Bellamy, the Tampa Bay donor mentioned above, intended to give money to candidate Alex Sink, but evidently didn't notice this line in bold print, just above the "Donate" button: "Make a contribution today to help defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her." Note that, as the Tampa Bay Times' article mentions, this kind of site isn't limited to Republicans, either.
At least the Slashdot beta site fooled no-one.
Has anyone created a website like the classic version of Slashdot that people are migrating to? I keep getting forced into the beta version when I come here. Where will everyone be going once this beta goes live?
What do GNOME 3, Windows 8, Firefox and Slashdot all have in common?
They're all software systems that have been ruined thanks to half-assed, hipster-inspired UI "redesigns" that alienated nearly all of the existing users, without actually bringing in any new users, while at the same time making said software virtually unusable.
The outcome of these disasters hasn't been a total loss, however. It has actually resulted in a new rule-of-thumb for UI design. A UI designer merely needs to ask himself or herself one simple question when analyzing a design: "Would a hipster approve of this design?"
If the answer is "Yes", then the design is inherently flawed and should be thrown out immediately, much like should happen to the Slashdot beta site. If the answer is "No", then the UI designer is on the right track. If there's one thing that's guaranteed in the UI design world, it's that the more hipsters hate your UI, the more effective and efficient it is to use for the majority of people.
If it can be shown that was your intent, you are committing fraud too. Enjoy your stay in club-fed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As great as that idea sounds, this kind of crap just reinforces the fact that campaign finance reform is desperately needed.
The "jollyforcongress.com" site: (a) doesn't ask for money, (b) immediately redirects to a page that has "floridadems" in the URL, and (c) looks nothing like Jolly's actual campaign site. So please stop pretending there's some kind of equivalence here. There isn't.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
If it can be shown that was your intent,
Not a trivial task, IMO. Posted AC because ...
Next time they'll just disguise as opposite party members and get elected.
Not only that, it's got DISHONEST, LOBBYIST, etc written all over the guy's pics.
Oh wait, that's what's confusing the Republicans.
It seems we have two parties in America right now: the Socialist party and the Hypocrite party.
Another poster points out that there's a sucker born every minute. The ultimate object in politics is to WIN. Stop acting surprised if one party or another engages in devious activity to reach that goal. It's been happening for thousands of years. It's never going to stop. Wash away your political views and you'll see they all do it, to one degree or another. Our perceptions of who's doing it 'more' are a major part of how we see the world, politically.
Someone hand me my snow blower...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Massively under-fund education 2. Take advantage of the under-educated masses 3. Profit
Spot on. I'd wear every downrating this comment gets as a badge of honor.
If it can be shown that was your intent, you are committing fraud too. Enjoy your stay in club-fed.
Except that the final decision on a charge back is made by the bank issuing the card. They have EVERY reason to keep their customer happy, and NO reason to give a crap about the merchant. The merchant has little recourse unless the card was either physically swiped and a signature provided, or they can show confirmation of delivery of goods at the customer's billing address. In this case, they have neither.
If you are going to whip out the credit card to spend a little money, take a little time to read all the text on the page. It was in large type that it was a donation to defeat the candidate. How many times in the past have we seen cute, cleaver and obscene assaults on congressional candidates on the Internet? Just google Santorum.
If you like your fake congressional candidate website, you can keep your fake congressional candidate website. Its political speech.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Forbes reports on a National Republican Congressional Committee sanctioned campaign worthy of the NSA
I get that we don't like the NSA around here, but why are we bringing it up when discussing an article that has nothing to do with anything the NSA does? What's the thinking process? "Hrm, this scam is slimy. Oh hey! The NSA is slimy too!"
Am I missing something?
There is a not so small difference between parody and impersonation. The illegal practice here is not to imitate what someone else did. What's illegal about it is the intent. It's not meant as a parody, to showcase some fallacies or shortcomings of the person or organization parodied, or to make fun of them. It's meant as impersonation to make people believe that they are who they are impersonating.
The "basic" intent may be the same in both, parody and impersonation. The intent may in both cases be to harm the reputation of a person or organization, or to impede their ability to gather supporters. The difference is that the parody tries to convince, the impersonation tries to trick.
Convincing people with arguments, i.e. a parody, that someone is a "bad person" is a good thing, because it leaves the decision whether they want to believe the parodist to the person being addressed. Impersonating does the same by tricking people who want to support someone into doing the opposite. I guess it ain't hard to see why this is not a "morally ok" (and hopefully not legally ok, either) practice.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
From the summary: 'Dr. Ray Bellamy, the Tampa Bay donor mentioned above, intended to give money to candidate Alex Sink, but evidently didn't notice this line in bold print, just above the "Donate" button: "Make a contribution today to help defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her."'
Is this how you want your doctor reading the physicians desk reference?
If you look at the web site or the photos in the article it's pretty hard to miss that one is contributing to "help defeat Alex Sink."
Yep, let's start protecting ourselves from more than just the fine print. Let's protect ourselves from the bolded headlines also. A little reading comprehension may have helped the good doctor realize just what he was doing.
No, I'm a welfare asshole and I deserve the fruits of your labor even if I am just a lazy fuck. So give me what's yours or I'll make myself look like a victim to a bunch of bleeding hearts who act like they're powerless to do anything but give away other peoples' wealth.
Isn't this just a way for them to get feedback from their audience? Contributions indicate a positive response, right?
I am surprised at the pervasive negativity against the beta, spamming all topics.
Slashdot, please roll out beta and close down classic as soon as possible! I hope the whiners will turn away and create their own site instead.
The new look has one great advantage: screen dumps will waste less green ink. The disadvantage is that printouts will require more paper, and onscreen consumption of the threads requires more scrolling.
Other than that I have not discovered any real differences.
Oh wait, except there is one specific issue left: Until today, every time I tried followed the "read more" link to see the comments, all I got was:
"Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments.Try again... na-nu, na-nu!"
Clicking the "Load More" button just reproduced the same Shazbot! message. The present topic is the first that I am able to follow in beta. The next topic down the front page returned another Shazbot. So, please fix the Shazbots ASAP, then close classic. Thanks.
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
I speaking from a purely legal standpoint, not the likely outcome. you intended to commit fraud, just as the people managing the webpage are. This is 2014. Is the '2 wrongs make a right' mandate now in effect and i missed the memo that somehow justifiable wrong is ok now?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First, the candidate is a public figure, so that closes a lot of avenues.
Second, the sites were only copied once, and were lookalikes; it's not clear they were actually copied. Not copied means it's not a copyright violation.
Third, it's unlikely that it's registered at the copyright office, which limits the liability.
It might be able to be used, but I have doubts it can recover the money fraudulently received. If the candidates had trademarked their names, it might be a possible avenue, but I don't think these people who made the sites would care much.
The cardholder is only their customer if he carries a balance. Otherwise, their only customer in the transaction is the merchant...
Because fraud is the same as not having a job. Gotcha.
For the record i do think what they were doing wrong and should be slapped down for it. I am just disagreeing with using the 'copyright angle' to deal with it, as its a bad direction to take, with long term bad consequences for the concept of free-speech.
Also i didn't mean to say they were engaging in parody, just that political parody will be one of the casualties if we go down this road. My fault if i didn't make that clear enough.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Fraud with clear intent: Time for the state DA offices to do their work. Federal agencies should be on this like flies on fresh horse shit.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
I'm unclear how that is fraud. The intent is to get people to recoup a donation made in error. Am I misunderstanding?
So I set up a third copycat website, but this time I wrote "Make a contribution today to help pay for me to stay on my tropical island, from where I will occasionally make telephone calls and emails opposing Alex Sink".
I accept $50,000 of donations, most of which I spend on my luxurious tropical lifestyle. This wasn't fraud?
Ok, the real question is, should be have laws to protect suckers? Or are they not worth protecting due to their inferior brain activity?
If Liberal want to win they got they do better because they are a free man
...
Except that the final decision on a charge back is made by the bank issuing the card. They have EVERY reason to keep their customer happy, and NO reason to give a crap about the merchant.
Uh, no. At least not in Canada. I noticed a bogus charge on my MasterCard CC statement and called up the Bank of Montreal. I was basically told to F-off because I was only a single person and the fraud charge came from a mega-corporation. If I wanted the charge reversed I would have to wait for BofM to send a bunch of paperwork and have an accountant or lawyer fill it out and return it. That was for $125.00 Canadian dollars. Lesson learned - never deal with Bank of Montreal.
Don't you freedom-loving libertarians love this kind of shit?
No, fraud is typically near the top of the list of the things libertarians don't like. I would wager in fact that a lot of spittle has been hurled on the subject of fraud and how to prevent it in a libertarian society.
What I think is particularly interesting about this example is not that it is outright fraud, but that the people perpetrating it think they can do so because they are Republicans and the victims are Democrats. If they had instead been "parodying" a big non-profit like Red Cross or World Wildlife Fund, I don't think there would be any doubt that it was intentional fraud.
Oh, you poor, poor Christians. Whatever will you do when we win the war on Christmas, and conifers are entirely outlawed, and you can't decorate your pagan trees anymore?
"Make a contribution then ask for it back. When they refuse, make a credit card chargeback. Will cost the NRCC $30 for each chargeback, and if they get too many, they get bumped up to a worse level merchant account."
What I think is funny is that a headline at the top of the page which says in bold letters Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and Candidates Like Her is somehow "misleading".
Caling that "small print at the bottom of the screen" as Forbes did is just plain bullshit. It's big, bold, in your face print, right there at the top.
But this is not a merchant, this is a politician. The bank has every reason to keep politicians happy to keep those bailouts and deregulation coming.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
What was described was to give said donation with premeditated intent to remove it, so as to cost the receiver money.
That is fraud.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Maybe they should setup a few cells for the NRCC. Intentionally misleading someone into donating money is also fraud. Even looking at the current site (which they have updated), they are clearly attempting to cause confusion. Is it any good? No. it's dumb and the people that fall for it are kinda dumb. Should that stop them from getting prosecuted for fraud? Absolutely not. Imagine the outrage if "democrats are swindling grandma!"
When engaged in BLACKENING the reputation of another, you frequently take on the mantle of a supporter of the entity you wish to damage.
In US politics, this means nothing can be taken at face value. Only a few days back, I was reading in one of the the fake 'Independent' George Soros backed 'news' sites the outrageous story of how a poor single mother had been raped, abused and then dismissed from her job by a highly placed Church official. It was a report designed to tug at the heart-strings of every bleeding heart liberal reader. However, five minutes of Google use told a very different tale.
Said victim was actually a person who had (allegedly) used her position in the Church to steal a fortune, and had just been arrested for the crime. Days after her arrest, her defence lawyer chose to use her consensual BDSM relationship with one of the people she worked with to imply to the very stupid that this was another of those organised religion abuse cases.
For Alphas, headline journalism doesn't work. But for the vast majority of readers (including 99% of you reading this), headline journalism is the most powerful propaganda tool imaginable. YOU won't research beneath the headline. YOU will either see the headline as reinforcing your current world view (in which case you'll like it), or you'll see it as propaganda for the other side, in which case you'll be proud to reject it. Prejudice, to an alpha, is cancer of the mind. To a beta, the whole point of 'education' is to acquire the 'correct' prejudice.
I hate organised religion, but the story I mentioned above stank, even though I have natural sympathy for the 'alternative' media. It stank so badly, it seemed in need of fact checking, after which I discovered just how far this media site would lie to sell an agenda. Sadly the lies sat next to the very important story of the 'cash for kids' scandal that led to every child in a near New York state that appeared before a juvenile court for minor school discipline issues being sent to prison by a judge who received direct financial payments from the private organisation that built and ran the children's prison.
This 'website donation' affair REEKS of a propaganda ploy to manipulate the opinions of you betas, and the promotion of the story by the owners of Slashdot pretty much confirms this suspicion. However, if you vote in national elections, you are beyond lost, so it hardly matters.
Surely a plow, not a blower!!!
How about phishing victims?
Let's look at the original site in the screenshot because they have changed it since this story broke.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/...
1) It uses the exact same color scheme as the real site
2) There is really just one word that reveals the true intention: "defeat" in large type that is under the main headline. Skim-reading could easily miss this word.
3) If you miss that word, most all the other text on the site is written to be confusing and ambiguous. It doesn't say "Stop Alex Sink" it says "Alex Sink, Congress". Why do you think they did that?
4)TFS is wrong, that word "defeat" is in a subtitle below the header and off to the right, nowhere near any button.
Sure this guy was dumb, or maybe going to fast and not paying attention to who he was donating to. But the NRCC clearly intended it to be confused with the real site. This is no different than posting an Ebay phishing site. Dont be quick to judge when your mom or grandpa or some other person could have made the same mistake.
Was this guy an idiot? Yes.
Is the NRCC committing fraud? Yes.
This is Alex Sink's actual website. This, as near as I can tell, is the "fake" website referenced. They do have similar color schemes, but apart from the domain name, all of the text and media on the website is calling for Alex Sink's defeat. It says: "DONATE: Help us stop Alex Sink from bankrupting us in Congress." If you click "DONATE" it takes you to a form which prominently says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her." At the bottom of every page there is a footer which reads "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."
If you're really intent on clicking through without reading anything, I suppose you might be confused. But at that point I'm not sure what can even be done to tip you off.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
They will now screenshot this thread and use it to contest charge-backs! /s
If I say "I was confused by your deliberately misleading website and donated by mistake, then somebody told me about this scam and I cancelled", how do you prove I'm lying?
Even if someone would dig through access logs to show how my IP accessed this article before accessing that donation page - "Yeah, that was my (wife/brother/roommate/daughter) who told me about this later."
Democrats have used fake websites, and their functionality depended on the purpose. Of course they have done more than that too, including running fake candidates.
Dems who created fake Tea Party candidates arraigned in Michigan
Reid Campaign Targets Angle Supporters With Phishing Website
Harry Reid’s campaign, however, took the code from the prior Angle website and launched a website called “TheRealSharronAngle.com.” The fake website was what, in internet terminology, is called spoofing, where a seemingly real website is created, usually to obtain information under false pretenses (frequently referred to as “phishing”). ...
But the reality is that by creating a spoofed website with the contact and volunteer functions operable, the Reid campaign sought to obtain personally identifiable information about Angle supporters. At a minimum, such information about Angle supporters would have been gathered under false pretenses.
The phishing function also would have been disruptive to the Angle campaign because people who thought they had volunteered for the Angle campaign never would have been contacted to help out because they had, in fact, been tricked.
Regardless of whether the Reid campaign’s spoofing and phishing attempt was criminal, it was sleazy.
Is Reid Campaign Hiding Its Activities To Evade Campaign Finance Laws?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
How can you tell a real one from a fake one? Donating to one or the other will give the same results. You're gonna get screwed either way.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...that even if a law has been broken here nobody will go to jail?
Your beta rant rant was very disappointing.
"What's illegal about it is the intent. It's not meant as a parody, to showcase some fallacies or shortcomings of the person or organization parodied, or to make fun of them. It's meant as impersonation to make people believe that they are who they are impersonating."
Where is the "impersonation" taking place?
If I walk around wearing a Ronald Reagan mask, carrying a sign in big letters saying "IMPEACH REAGAN", is that "impersonation"? Or is it legitimate political speech? (Never mind that Reagan is no longer in office. Replace him with any other elected official.)
The picture of her on the website? Well, if you want someone to help defeat a candidate, don't you want them to know what candidate it is?
I admit that the way they used the colors was pretty low, but nowhere do I see where they actually crossed the line into "impersonation" or "fraud". Every bit of text, in BOLD print, very hard to miss, says they are trying to defeat this candidate.
In my opinion, this is even LESS misleading than putting less product into the same size package. It isn't "small print". It's up-front, clearly worded, bold type.
If you put your name on it, you would have honor.
Being an AC, you're not very proud I think.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
What I think is particularly interesting is that people think this is the behavior of just one political party.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
When it has been found that a PAC has used any type of fraud or trickery to get a donation said PAC will be subject to a Full Forensic Level IRS Audit (since they did this what else have they done with the "books").
Oh and for the duration of the Audit they are bared from doing any funding transfers/transactions.
Gitmo ain't got nothing on the Pain and Suffering the Infernal Revenue Service can cause even without using the horror of BETA SLASHDOT.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Lesson learned; don't expect better if you live in Canada.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Thanks for the offer but I think I'll maintain my anonymity since I didn't pen the original post.
Funny how you didn't note that Reid's campaign turned off the donate function. And there is no evidence that Reid's fake site actually collected any PII. The author just assumed it did because the form submit button worked. As a slashdotter, you should know better than to accept that as proof. Terrible, untrustworthy links you got there too. Please learn to link to at least semi-neutral sources.
Let's see what actually following your evidence of equivalency provides:
1) First link, National Review. Terribly partisan but OK, will verify what it says. And truly looks like election fraud. Fair enough there were other sources on this incident -- many more recent ones too. The people responsible have been arrested, gone to trial and have been been sentenced. (Google is your friend). Regardless this is off-topic. You are comparing local election fraud to national. Local and national politics have little to do with each other and the national parties that local politicians identify with have no bearing to local issues. Doesn't matter if someone is pro choice or pro life when their job is to make sure the garbage is picked up and the roads are plowed when it snows. Or perhaps you were saying we should arrest the chairman of the NRCC? Sounds good.
2) What the crap is this blog? The story says he didnt collect money, and has no proof of collecintg PII. No other sources. The story you link also shows technical ignorance about HTML forms. The site has a clear political slant (right in it's header).
3 HotAir, what a waste. Many of the links go back to your second blog link. But at least HotAir links to Politico. Which, despite originally being started by the GOP, is good enough as a source.
Politico states: http://www.politico.com/news/s...
After she won the June 8 primary, Angle gave her actual website a well-publicized facelift and reworded many of her positions on issues including Social Security and Second Amendment rights — statements that as written might have aided Angle in the primary, but would likely be a liability in the general election.
Funny. That actually sounds like what Reid's campaign was saying.
Hall said the website did not have any mechanism to collect the e-mail addresses, adding: “If someone entered data, it did not go anywhere.”
Oops.
Let's check the score:
Election fraud unrelated to fake websites: 1 (to be fair will give your this one)
Democrat funded sites that collect information: 0
Number of NRCC sites that actually collect information: 16
Number of NRCC sites that actually collect donations: 16
Number of on-topic and credible links you provided: 0/3
as the summary says... its not just republicans doing this.
having said that, I see nothing wrong with what is being done. If someone is too stupid to read who they are giving money to, then its better spent on the other party, regardless of who it is anyway
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
see "Americans for a Conservative Direction" which is running all sorts of TV ads trying to convince average Republicans to support "comprehensive immigration reform" by pretending to be a Republican-aligned group that's serious about things like tough border control....... except that it's manned by several "rinos" (NOT conservatives) and it's "deep pockets" include Bill Gates (Lib Dem) and Zuckerberg (hardly a conservative) who've both been pushing to eliminate all the immigration limits and H1B visa limits. It's a trick.
Then there was "Republicans for Obama" back in 2012.....
The really funny one was intra-party in 2012 when the Romneys funded something which IIRC was called "Evangelicals for Romney" ..... (for those not familiar with basic protestant theological matters, "evangelicals" consider Mormonism to be a cult whose teachings are anti-Biblical so that one was basically an oxymoron.... about equivalent to "serious Catholics for Imam Yousef" or some such thing)
This sort of stuff feeds on itself with the consultants on all campaigns learning from each-other, so people just need to grow up and learn to see through it (and look into ANY political website or organization.
Stop /. redirecting you to it @ least, by adding THIS to your hosts file:
216.34.181.45 slashdot.org
216.34.181.45 beta.slashdot.org
216.34.181.46 images.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 it.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 developers.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 yro.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 mobile.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 news.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 ask.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 tech.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 apple.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 books.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 games.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 hardware.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 interviews.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 linux.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 science.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 idle.slashdot.org
* :)
THAT will block out their ability to redirect you to it whatsoever - Especially the 2nd line item from the top/BOLDED entry line above...
(You're welcome)
APK
P.S.=> To import, sort, deduplication, create & manage a custom hosts file easily that does not only THAT (secures you vs. redirects @ the DNS or even site level), but also gives you more speed, security, reliablity, & even anonymity, use this (shameless plug, details of what custom hosts give you in FULL are listed here) -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
... apk
Senator Inhofe did something similar with his infamous anti-AGW petition signed by "35,000 scientists", he dressed it up to look remarkably similar to a National Academies survey. Like this guy, the vast majority of scientists on that petition were swayed by NAS's reputation and signed without sufficient scrutiny, they also feel they have been the victim of fraud.
None of the victims are "stupid", they are human and all humans have imperfect bullshit detectors.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The GP did however hit the nail on the head when he said the people who engage in this behaviour see themselves as victims. Also from the distant vantage point of Australia it does seem to me that this sort of thing is more typical of the right-wing than the left in the US, perhaps that's because from this far away the US right-wing is seen thru the prism of it's god awful mouthpiece - Fox news? Having said that the level of vitriol and misinformation in US political advertising from all sides is disheartening, the bland acceptance of this behaviour by the free press is just downright dangerous.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There are equivalencies to be made across the parties. This is not one of them.
Yeah right, Mr Fat Cat banker has nothing better to do than to personally monitor petty cash transactions to and from local politicians. These kind of decisions are made by a computer, middle class humans are employed to rubber stamp the "yes" decisions and explain the "no" decisions.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That's odd. I remember it the other way around in my State of Michigan. Republicans running fake democrats.
http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2012/jul/18/prosecutor-says-roy-schmidt-and-jace-bolger-schemed-to-undermine-election/
Or news reporters running sound alike candidates:
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/dugeon-vs-duggan-did-leduff-encourage-write-in-candidate-with-confusing-name-to-run-for-mayor
If we took the politicians' power away or diluted it, they wouldn't spend so much time fighting for the position. Let's go back to 1 representative for every 35,000 people. Just like it says in the constitution.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution-text/house-of-representatives/
I'm unclear how that is fraud.
You have stated the intent is to impose a cost to the "charity" under the guise of a donation. What's worse you are conspiring with others in an effort to amplify the damages. The key moral here is the "charity" is innocent until proven guilty, and even if proven guilty, it's not your place to orchestrate financial punishment via deceit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
On TONS of levels vs. hosts files. For a list of 17++ of those see here http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Enjoy!)
APK
P.S.=> Hosts not only block ads (better than "almost all ads blocked by default") but TONS of other online threats, + they yield you more SPEED (block ads & hardcode your fav. sites for faster resoolution AND stopping DNS flawed redirection), SECURITY (vs. kjnown malicious code on sites, adbanners that are poisoned, fastflux & dynamic + normal botnet designs etc.), RELIABILITY (vs. downed or redirect poisoned DNS servers - a HUGE problem out there) & even added anonymity to a degree (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL override ability locally)... apk
One would have to be a complete Idiot be tricked by them. The text on the screen is there for a reason, Folks! Read it!
Am I the only one who's thinking that this Dr. Bellamy's patients should probably reconsider the wisdom of seeing a physician who can't be bothered to notice a BOLD warning RIGHT next to the "donate" button? I mean, if he's missing this kind of thing, what else (potentially life-threatening) is he missing?
Just sayin'...
Here in Canada we seem to be going to the American system of elections and it is the right wing Conservative Party that is leading the way with attack ads, dirty tricks, now gutting the election officials because they feel being called out every time they break the law is partisan even though it is them breaking or skimming the edge of the law.
So far the center and left have resisted dropping to the same level but as it has been shown that attack ads do work. even if total lies as it seems to be human to pay more attention to bad stuff I'm sure the center and left will be doing the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
What I think is interesting is that this is yet another Florida voter who doesn't pay attention to what he is doing and decided he did it wrongly after the fact.
The site clearly says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large print right above the denomination amounts and claims "Contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes." as well as "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.nrcc.org" at the bottom of the page. Although the paid for and non deductability clauses do somewhat blend into the background picture but it is obvious something is written there and if I was going to give CC information, I would see what it says before entering anything in. I would hope anyone else would do the same.
https://www.nrcc.org/alex-sink...
It should also be noted that the standard donate template seems to be the one used for the NRCC site. The only difference is it says help defeat a candidate and has their name and picture present.
https://www.nrcc.org/contribut...
And to make things worse, the democrat in question doesn't even collect the contributions herself, she has them funneled into a PAC called ActBlue.
http://www.alexforcongress.com...
I don't see this as anything nefarious but rather failing to read the details of what you are doing. Perhaps we should institute a requirement that all campaign websites use AOL so users won't get confused over the details staring them in the face when they try to throw money at someone?
The merchant can initiate the fraud complaint. The site clearly says help defeat $name and candidates like her/him right before entering the dollar amount. So the only way to make a charge back would be to claim your card use was not authorized by you.
https://www.nrcc.org/alex-sink...
Well, it probably wouldn't even go that far because it clearly states "to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large print right above the monetary amounts you can select. You would likely have to claim the card use wasn't authorized in order to get the charge back in the first place.
The Dems have plenty of their own failings, but the Republicans do actually lead by a large margin in outright fraud. It's the Rs that robocall registered Democrats to tell them the wrong day or place to vote. It's the Rs that put up sites that are clearly meant to capture donations intended for Ds.
The Canadian right seems to be developing the same bad habits from what I have seen of the news up there.
Something about leaning right seems to make fraud and other dirty tactics seem OK.
And yet if you followed that link, you would find that there was no place on the page to donate. It was just a page full of quoted from Republicans against a particular Republican. Pointing out that a candidate isn't well supported by his own party is fair game.
I can only guess it was either an ediitor in denial or a very lame attempt at 'balance'.
Ignoring Democrat history if registering the dead, voting early and often, and helping their elderly etc fill out their absentee ballots, the Left does seem to lag the right in dirty tricks. But you do have to ignore their history.
We could go on and on. This shouldn't be a tit-for-tat exchange if both parties are unacceptably guilty of such.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
democrats complaining others are using their tactics of lie, cheat, steal(?!?!?!?) PRICELESS!!!!! Yet another reason to invite democrats, facists, socialists, communists, humanists, etc. to give up their citizenship and move to the socialist country of their choice at their own expense!
The Chicago Dems of the past were certainly no paragons of virtue. However, current behavior is a bigger problem today.
Conservative values are dictated to conservatives to ensure that the self is always more important than anything else. That mindset lends itself very well to criminal behavior.
It is a sad but true joke that the vast majority of the left leaning prison population is poor males who got busted for victimless (often marijuana related) crimes, while the vast majority of the right leaning prison population are murderers, rapists.. otherwise a crime they fully intended to do, to end up where they were.
The Beta interface for Slashdot is a ditry trick as bad as what the GOP might be doing. It has the effect of changing a discussion into a blog wit all the opinion suppression attributes of a blog and of social media generally. Compare it to Google Groups and Google+ and Facebook and you will get that the change is for the benefit of the marketers and business spys and not for our conversation and debate.
Fuck Beta, Fuck Dice!
I wasn't referring to Chicago or the past.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
or the past
Erm, history implies past, yes?
That's what it is so report nrcc to google and makethem vanish from search results.
Recent past v long ago. Even the news is the past.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The line between impersonation and parody is drawn at the point of being obvious. You will notice that everyone who does a parody of something will make painstakingly SURE that everyone knows that it's a parody and not the "real deal", and most certainly they will steer clear of anything like collecting donations. If collecting donations is a hallmark or a key point of the parodied person/organization's (like, say, televangelists), they will usually make sure that it is very, very obvious that they are NOT collecting for the cause parodied or give fake information so people cannot donate (like, say, they tell them to direct their donations to the Fraudster's Delight Bank of Yousuckistan).
Reputable parodists are usually very, very careful to NOT run into the problem of opening themselves to the allegation that they're trying to trick people into giving them money instead of the target of their parody.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But we don't call the News 'history' when it is first broadcast. The History channel never shows breaking news.