Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#61

Post by jerf »

pavs wrote: post #14
hugh3 wrote: post #11

They 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."

Look, can't we come together under the banner of mutual brotherhood and fraternity and agree that Internet trolls can't be held against any political view? Can't we all come together and agree that whatever our differences, at least we can look down our noses at that lot?

Do you really think it would be that different if the Democrats had put up the same site? Or Libertarians, or Labour?

The stupidity of raw internet conversation transcends political boundaries.

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#62

Post by username3 »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #55

Honestly, 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 l…

Are there any startups working on a dialog or debate system using FluidDB?

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#64

Post by smallblacksun »

pyre wrote: post #56
lukev wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can be a Republican in a district represented by a Democrat.

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#65

Post by amalcon »

byrneseyeview wrote: post #60
amalcon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looking at that would be a great way to create some really perverse incentives.

"Let's spend more money on the armed forces and post office, to make the portion that comes under Clause 3 appear smaller."

A lawyer I spoke to told me that there's a question regarding federal law on the bar exam every single year, asking "From where is the power to create X law derived in the Constitution?" It's a different law every year, but the answer is always the same: "The commerce clause."

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#66

Post by aohtsab »

superdude wrote: post #3

I can't tell if this is real or a satirical article. "Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who created the program, said that to get software for the site, 'I personally traveled to Washington state and discovered a Microsoft program that helped NASA map the moon.'"

I can't either! Does this mean they took apart the software and remolded it to their own purposes (proprietary & doubtful besides), or ar they really using a GIS to show upvotes?

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#67

Post by rottencupcakes »

jerf wrote: post #61
pavs wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." Look, can't we come together under the banner of mutual brotherhood and fraternity and agree that Internet trolls can't be held against any political view? Can't we all come together and agree that whatever our differences, at least we can look down our noses at that lot? Do you really think it…

Is Conservapedia a giant troll wiki or is it legit? I'm almost convinced it has to be satire.

Bookmarked sections in this (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism) article include:

"Commonly Cited Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism", "Atheism and Mass Murder", "Atheism and Immoral Views"

The abortion article even cites Hitler as being a proponent of abortion. It's even funnier than the atheism one. http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#68

Post by yummyfajitas »

jerf wrote: post #61
pavs wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." Look, can't we come together under the banner of mutual brotherhood and fraternity and agree that Internet trolls can't be held against any political view? Can't we all come together and agree that whatever our differences, at least we can look down our noses at that lot? Do you really think it…

If anyone doubts it would be different if the Dems made such a site:

"We must not stop until the American people win the war on Health-Care [...] Our leaders today are nothing short of Angels. “Gods Elect” put in power by God for his people and his world."

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/dalecourtney?p...

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#69

Post by j_baker »

I have a feeling the thought process behind this site was something like this:

1. Have an idea for one of those newfangled web 2.0 things. 2. Hire someone to write it. 3. ??? 4. Profit!

As it turns out, there's more to it to create a successful social media site...

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#70

Post by pavs »

jerf wrote: post #61
pavs wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." Look, can't we come together under the banner of mutual brotherhood and fraternity and agree that Internet trolls can't be held against any political view? Can't we all come together and agree that whatever our differences, at least we can look down our noses at that lot? Do you really think it…

I think you misunderstood me. I abhor all politicians and all forms of fixed political ideology, whether its the liberal, the conservative the libertarians or what not. Any ideology that encourages you to blindly follow a self-imposed moral, with disregard to rationality and reason, or the needs of the present day, is not my cup of tea.

But even those ideologies have extremsist, and if you were to actually listen to everyday republican's around you, they sound exactly like most of the comments on that website. This has nothing to do with me not liking republicans but everything to do with what they have actually become.

These extreme views might not be the majority (I think they are, but hard to know for sure), but they are definitely the loudest and the ones dictating the platform for the republican party.

IMO YMMV

Post reply on HN