This is right, and is a major problem with them. Which is why they should be banned, full stop.
And also, sometimes robocalls repeat themselves, which is in itself annoying.
This is right, and is a major problem with them. Which is why they should be banned, full stop.
And also, sometimes robocalls repeat themselves, which is in itself annoying.
Right there with you. You should not have a First Amendment right to ring my phone, uninvited.
Right there with you. You should not have a First Amendment right to ring my phone, uninvited.
(OK, I’ll stop.) 
Heh.
Picker, I second Bricker 's answer (just so you don’t get all upset at my failure to reply) .
But which is far more likely?
The inference you are making is that it’s possible that a third party could have done this. And you are correct. It’s a tactic that is well served in a courtroom, where the introduction of sufficient potentialities is grounds for the introduction of reasonable doubt.
It also serves well in persuading those not interested in applying critical thinking to the facts and issues. And especially for muddying the waters in hopes of dissuading those not trained nor accustomed to such thought processes. We have a name for this. Propaganda.
Taking a look at the two parties - and bear in mind, I’m not pro-Democrat, but I am anti-Corporate Oligarchy - I choose the one that does not appear to be pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate at all turns vis a vis a coordinated campaign of disinformation, disenfranchisement, bullying, strong-arm tactics, and rules-lawyering.
I assume you are familiar with the concept of willful blindness. To put it in terms you can understand, see In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003)
Now, you are going to make the argument that this doesn’t apply here. I’m not saying it does, in the specific application of law. I am saying that you are, collectively, engaging in this behavior. Some from ignorance, some with intent, some through misapplied partisan enthusiasm. I wouldn’t presume to say which applies, and I respect your skill at lawyering and obfuscation enough to be content in calling your argument out in the face of facts. Not arguments.
*see also *
Shakespeare, Wm. Henry VI, pt II:Act 4, Scene 2.
I see your point, but I cannot agree. I feel that such a tactic (if it is occurring) would likely result in a lot of people believing the message and staying home. Sadly, some of our citizens are easily led astray, especially if they believe it will result in less work for them.
I googled and found this:
http://www.wibw.com/home/nationalnews/headlines/In_Wisconsin_Reports_Of_Voter_Suppression_Efforts_157298065.html
At least we have news source on this, but they still use the phrase ‘there are reports’ which leaves me scratching my head. Who are ‘they’ and why should I believe them? Which is not to say they are not telling the truth., but it seems like bad journalism.
But, all robocalls should be summarily banned.
Along with a reinstatement of:
Truth in Advertising
Equal Time
the elimination of :
Citizens United
Super PACs (and all other political tools of mass destruction)
all tools designed to disenfranchise voters
all paid advertising beyond citizen donation funded official candidate campaigns
and the introduction of:
run off voting
term limits
mandatory fact checking of political statements
mandatory debates subject to statement verification
If we do some of this, it becomes imbalanced in favor of some entrenched interest or another. If we do them all, everyone is handicapped equally. Suddenly, merit and value trump money and partisanship.
Never happen. Too much money at stake.
Occam’s Razor, people.
The number in discussion, can only be linked to the Republican Party on a few obscure websites, and then only by searching for that number (as opposed to trying to find the number for the WI GOP). If I try to find the number for the WI GOP I find (608) 257-4765, a different number, on their website. If I was going to try to frame them by faking caller ID, I would likely use the first one I found rather than something more obscure (even if I could find it). I’d do this, if for no other reason, because it would more quickly lead accusers to them.
But the theory from some people seems to be that someone managed to dig up this more obscure number and fake it on caller ID. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Add to this the fact that phone records will show whether or not the calls actually came from that number.
So you have someone sophisticated enough to find this obscure number, someone sophisticated enough to fake caller ID, but someone who is not sophisticated enough to realize that the whole thing will fall apart when phone records are subpoenaed.
Sure, it’s possible. Sure you couldn’t, and shouldn’t, convict someone in a court of law based on this but, seriously, Occam’s Razor cuts heavily in favor of someone using an actual Republican phone line to do this.
Hey. They’ve got the complaint. They’ve got the number. We’ll see what happens. I know were I’d put my money.
Maybe. But the Pubbies have been burned with this shit before, they’ve got boatloads of money to hire professional cynics, and nothing erases fingerprints like money.
My bet is that it is a self-appointed independent operative. At any rate, I would be very surprised if deniability were not built in.
As I said in a previous post, this could easily be a rogue Republican GOTV volunteer using their phones to spread this disinformation. My point is that the source of this is Republicans and not some Democrat trying to frame Republicans. If you think about it, that doesn’t make sense anyway. A Democrat doing this would be cutting off his own nose to spite his face. He’d be potentially suppressing Democratic turnout in order to frame Republicans.
I’ll add this. If this is some rogue Republican doing this on his own without involving the party, why would he fake their phone number? He’d just use a throwaway.
Assuming he’s smart. Leap of faith, there.
If he’s smart enough to think about faking caller Id, and he’s smart enough to actually be able to do it, then I’d think he’d be smart enough not to go to the effort to ferret out and use some obscure number that belongs to the people he’s trying to help.
If you think one result is more likely than another, then you need to make an argument for it. So far we’ve just got you flapping your gums in the general direction dictated by your prejudices.
I wouldn’t talk about flappy gums if I was you.
Keep dreaming, buddy (re: “if I was you”).
Right. I meant something totally different from how that phrase is almost universally interpreted. Sure. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:
[Moderating]
Actually, this pretty much is saying it to them directly. Which is against the rules. Don’t do this again.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]