[deleted]
Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
51–60 of 137 posts
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#52[deleted]
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've made a troll quality insult against Republicans ("Republicans sound like trolls" without any argument, details, quote, etc). Hmm. Trolling about trolling. Meta irony, I hope?
"We should not allow Muslims to enter the country." Is this statement a troll, or what someone actually believes? There's enough wrong with it that I could believe it's a troll, and yet I've honestly met people who would be completely sincere in saying it. Browse around a little more, and you'll find many other statements like it. Part of me hopes it's just idiotic trolls ruining what could have been constructive dia…
Heh, nice quote, I can't tell!
Edit: Yes, I took it to be a real quote.
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#54They seem to have underestimated the speed at which trolls can ruin everything. This, of course, is why we can't have nice things.
After reading some of the comments on their website I have hard time distinguishing trolls from republican talking points. Also Poe's Law: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poes+Law
>After reading some of the comments on their website I have hard time distinguishing trolls from republican talking points.
That's indeed the most interesting aspect of the whole story.
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#55Honestly, this kind of depresses me. I'd love to see an honest dialogue between government and citizens with well thought out ideas and respect from both sides. However, that's just not happening here. Between the massive influx of immature trolls and the Poe's Law style comments, it seems doomed from the start. The server creaking under the massive weight of traffic certainly isn't helping either. I think a system like this could work with some better moderation, and perhaps a better start to it, but this one doesn't appear to have a future, unfortunately.
Edit: I'd also like to add that this article is terrible. The seem to be taking glee in the fact that trolls deliberately poisoned the site, rather than thinking about how this could have been useful. I put the blame as much (if not moreso) on the people trolling the site as I do the nutjobs adding sincere comments.
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying politicians shouldn't listen to the people when developing policy ideas? If people actually used such a website in good faith then it could potentially produce some useful ideas and allow them to percolate upwards to party policymakers. They shouldn't blindly pick whatever ideas turn out to be popular on their website, but it might bring up some things they hadn't thought of before.
The sad part is they feel a website like this is necessary. They're professional politicians in a democratic country. They should already be in touch with their constituency. They should have a chain of advisement and direction built all the way from local caucuses at the precinct level. And if they were serious about making the project more efficient by taking it online, they should have a registration-based website…
> they should have a registration-based website with registration tied to actual party membership
So if I'm in an area that is represented by a member of another party, then my voice deserves less weight than the voice of someone that is a member of that party?
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We should not allow Muslims to enter the country." Is this statement a troll, or what someone actually believes? There's enough wrong with it that I could believe it's a troll, and yet I've honestly met people who would be completely sincere in saying it. Browse around a little more, and you'll find many other statements like it. Part of me hopes it's just idiotic trolls ruining what could have been constructive dia…
Heh, nice quote, I can't tell! Edit: Yes, I took it to be a real quote.
Actually, that's actually a real example I found in the National Defense section. So far, that seems to be the worst minefield for "troll vs true".
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#58They had to go to Microsoft to get this? Reddit is open source. But I'm guessing they see open source as anti-american.
Don't you get it? Reddit is pro-Obama, so obviously they couldn't use this communist rubbish.
True patriotic capitalists use proper respectable Microsoft software for everything.
(note for the humor-impaired: I'm poking fun at both the typical Tea Partyer, and the the pointy-haired types (see Dilbert) that get to decide what software to use.)
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd have more sympathy, except that attempting to establish policy by soliciting on a public, unmoderated website is a ludicrous idea to begin with. It's got about the same validity as Fox News running a radiobutton poll on their website on "Is Obama really a citizen?"
Are you saying politicians shouldn't listen to the people when developing policy ideas? If people actually used such a website in good faith then it could potentially produce some useful ideas and allow them to percolate upwards to party policymakers. They shouldn't blindly pick whatever ideas turn out to be popular on their website, but it might bring up some things they hadn't thought of before.
I would not trust any politician who says “I have no idea what policies I should be proposing once I get elected, so I want to hear your ideas.” Such a politician is either an idiot or a liar.
A politician with intelligence and integrity would say something like “If I’m elected, I will try to get the government to do X, Y, and Z. If you have any particular ideas about how to accomplish these goals, or if you want to try and convince me I’m wrong, I welcome your feedback.”
Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort by interest and you get ones that are at least more literate. http://www.americaspeakingout.com/browse/questions/in/job-cr...
Even many of these seem a little naive. Take this one: PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. So, people really think that it will help to protect the Constitution to write "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3" on every bill? The court has historically interpreted the commerce clause in such a way that every…
It reveals dependencies. People might be concerned if, e.g., 90% of government spending was valid if and only if the commerce clause had a particular interpretation.
Companies disclose if a single customer represents even 10% of their revenues, because it's a risk factor.