Yes. They are exactly the same. They are spelled the same, they are pronounced the same, they have been around for exactly the same time, down to the picosecond. They share identical characteristics, including weight, height, depth, temperature, consistency, taste, and permeability to neutrinos.
That is, after all, exactly what I said, and exactly what a person of penetrating intellect such as yourself should properly discern from it. “They are the same.” You nailed it.
Or maybe … and I’m just spitballing here … maybe they are not, you know, exactly the same. Maybe they share some similar characteristic that is relevant to the discussion.
Naw. It’s probably the other thing. The neutrino thing.
(a) That’s a scummy thing to do
(b) For very different reasons than the scummy thing the Republicans are accused of
I should just have that on permanent copy-paste for arguing with you. The problem with the democratic email is that it’s dishonest about who it is raising money for… presumably a fair number of Sanders supporters not only would prefer to support him directly over the DNC, but in fact actively dislike the DNC due to its (perceived?) sleights against Bernie himself.
The problem with the republican letter is that it’s attempting to present itself as something other than a voluntary solicitation of funds, by copying some of the form factor of an overdue bill, likely with the cynical purpose of preying on the old.
And the cherry on the top of your bizarre waste of time of a post is the idea that on the SDMB, with a very large and vocal pro-Bernie population, no one would ever criticize the DNC. But of course you just engaged in a self-enforcing behavior. You start out with the premise that dopers won’t criticize something like that. Then instead of starting a separate thread about it actually laying out what happened, you bring it up only as a “lol ur a hypocrite” example in the middle of a thread about Republican chicanery, so of course people aren’t going to reward you by buying into your hijack, so of course it exaggerates the extent to which dopers might shy away from criticizing the DNC, and hey, presto, Bricker gets to feel good about how everyone who disagrees with him is a walking double standard.
I bring it up because the thread attacks Rance and the GOP for using scummy tactics with the clear implication that it’s a sin only of the GOP.
I point out that scummy behavior is not limited to the GOP.
You pop in to point out that this is different scummy behavior.
Yes, it is. So is it more or less scummy to raise money from unwilling donors by pretending to be a dunning notice or by pretending to be a different recipient?
Frankly, I don’t see huge amounts of moral difference there.
While I agree democrats are not lily white and would even accept for the sake of an argument that the were equally reprehensible, I am disappointed and surprised that you feel this way. The delinquency notice looks real and scary enough that I would bet 20 bucks that my 80 year old mother would fall for it. She wouldn’t fall for the fake Bernie solicitation even if she was an avid supporter because she knows she does not have the money to support a political campaign. That you are unable to see this distinction or feel the need to defend it because it is your side is truly disappointing.
In reality there was no such “clear implication” before you decided that the best way to respond to this sleazy fundraising letter was to protest that posters were unfairly targeting Republicans.
No, there is no “error” to admit regarding the legal question. Hesitancy or failure of a governmental agency to act does not decide the legality of this solicitation. The FDA (to cite just one example) is notoriously slow to act against illegal pitches by supplement sellers. That does not automatically mean that these dealers are all acting legally.
And beyond your seeking refuge in the tu quoque fallacy, sleaze involved in Dems soliciting funds by implying the money will go to Bernie Sanders doesn’t begin to compare with embarrassing and frightening people by mailing them a “delinquent” notice which others (including the postman) can see.
Beyond Bricker’s pseudo-moral outrage, I can only wonder: in what universe did Republicans think this solicitation was a good idea? I get pissed off when Democrats send me phony push polls in an effort to rile me up enough to send them money.* Getting a phony notice of delinquency would engender pissed-offedness that was orders of magnitude higher.**
*I sent back the latest poll with my own choices added (instead of their bogus options) and mailed it in their postage-paid envelope. That’ll teach 'em. :mad:
**I’ve gotten plenty of come-ons from the A.M.A. but never anything as blatantly deceptive as what the G.O.P did.
First, i’ll state unequivocally that i find the DNC’s tactics with that “Support Bernie Sanders” email to be incredibly scummy.
But not as scummy, in my opinion, at what the RNC did with a fake dunning notice.
Here’s the difference:
The DNC notice was clearly a solicitation for a political contribution. The only people who would be likely to reply to such a notice would be people who (a) support Bernie Sanders campaign and/or the broad general principles of Democratic Party, and (b) feel financially secure enough to make a donation.
Yes, it is true that people who explicitly support Bernie Sanders might make a donation in the belief that it was going directly to the Sanders campaign, when it’s actually going to the DNC. And yes, those people would have been conned, especially since Bernie himself and plenty of his supporters have very little time for the way the DNC has been handling the primary elections.
So it’s bad, and i hereby denounce it.
A dunning notice is not simply a solicitation for funds. It is an effort to make it appear as if the person receiving the letter has been delinquent on a financial obligation, and actually owes the sender a certain amount of money. And if the recipient actually gives credence to the letter, and is tricked into believing that the money is owed, they will send the money whether they want to support the Republican Party or not and—this is the crucial difference here—whether they can actually spare the money or not.
In Case (1), people know that they are being asked for a voluntary donation, but they might not be donating to exactly who they think. In Case (2), it is entirely possible for people to believe that they are not being asked for a voluntary donation, but are being informed of a legal obligation. In Case (1), people might be conned out of money they know they can afford to give; in Case (2), people might be conned out of money they can’t afford.
If you can’t detect a significant moral difference between those two things, either you’re not as smart as i’ve always given you credit for, or you’re more dishonest than i’ve ever given you credit for.
Reeks of desperation, I think. Seems like the play of someone who knows the game will be up, soon enough. Picking pockets while they’re still there to pick!
(Sure, Gran or Gramp will likely pay up, but when their kids hear about it they’re gonna be pissed, I think. They already don’t especially like the candidate, and now this is just odious. Aren’t they the best hope for future Republicans? Seems extremely short sighted to me.)
Can you quote the part where from which this “clear implication” derives? Frankly, this looks like you tu quoqued the thread for no reason other than to tu quoque it (if I may verb that term).
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy in which the argument is made that X is bad, and then supposedly refuted by pointing out that the rhetor himself does X, so therefore X is not bad.
Here, I am not rebutting the claim that the actions are scummy. Instesd, I am pointing out that equally scummy actions are used by all sides, and therefore the implicit argument that only Republicans use scummy tactics is false.
Which leads nicely into your next question: was there such an implicit claim?
Yes:
Both of these, as well as the tone of the surrounding posts, suggest that the scummy behavior issue rests with Republicans.
Otherwise, why not say that members of political parties that do these kinds of things need to denounce them? Why not say that there are no special privileges for political mailings?
Maybe, in future, threads like this should have some sort of special disclaimer, along the lines of:
While this thread is about dishonest practices committed by [Party A], it is not in any way intended to convey the impression that [Party B] does not, on occasion, also engage is dishonest practices.
The text of the letter, though, makes clear that it’s not actually owed. So we’re talking about the effect it might have one someone that reads it closely enough to discover how to pay, and how much to pay, but somehow misses the language that says it’s for political support?
I don’t think that actually happens. I think there is an initial shoick at the envelope – I have gotten these and had that excat reaction (“What bill did I forget to pay?”) But in looking at it to see who I owe, the truth becomes clear.
So I contend virtually nobody actually gets defrauded by the RNC mail. But the DNC mail actually generates money for the DNC that donors intended to go to Bernie Sanders.
