Mayoral Candidate mails out survey with question regarding the Arena.

[Torture]

The fact there is a typo calling them the Flamers and the coincidence that Farkas is gay is in fact, the least interesting part of this terrible thread.

[Yeah_Baby]

For what it's worth, Farkas identifies as Bisexual

[Badgers Nose]

After his exile for being a nut job, he came back and was contrite. I had high hopes for him learning from that and becoming a good leader candidate.

But now I see he is back to his grand standing. He just lost my vote.

[Parallex]

Pretty much 100% of the times politicians send out a "survey" they're not actually doing market research (they'd hire a market research firm to do it if that were the case).

It's virtually always something else... usually it's just comms put out in the form of a question "Candidate X likes to torture and kill puppies and kittens do you agree this is bad? Y/N". Sometimes it's campaign research rather then policy research meaning it's an attempt to discover what kinds of issues and framing you can use against your opponent that will resonate with voters, the last time he ran for mayor Farkas put out an online arena survay and I was going to answer it until it got to the submit section where in order to submit my answers I would have had to provide my name and contact info... no thank you... I'll be happy to tell you what I think about an issue but I'll pass on being a part of your datamining/list-building exercise so you can micro-target me and spam my e-mail and texts with messaging.

They're going to do this type of stuff anyways and the subject of any particular question is almost meaningless so I have no issue with him using the arena for it. I'd rather they just not send out things like this but they keep on doing it so I imagine they either have data that says it's effective or sending it out in the form of a question activates some kind of spending loophole. I mean heck the conservative party's love to send out mailers that are basically attack ads because they can bill those as "constituent communications" and offload the cost to taxpayers through their office budget rather then paying it out of party coffers like partisan political ads would. I'm not up on what municipal campaign spending and advertising rules are so I can't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of loophole.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

He isn't trying to 'gauge the opinion' of constituents. The statement is wildly misleading and even inaccurate - he is trying to stir emotions.

"How do you feel about you paying for an arena, and the owners getting all the profits?"

Yeah, that's trying to gauge opinions.

Can you explain what is misleading and inaccurate about the statement?

[Royle9]

We're talking about Farkas guys, the guy is a nut job through and through.
His feelings are always hurt, and he's got that thing where he has to try and be the smartest man in the room all the time.
He's been against the arena since day one, and was openly adamant that Calgarians are getting fleeced and if he was mayor there would be no new arena.

Remember when he made up a bunch of rumors about things being discussed behind closed doors during council meetings that shouldn't be? And then when he was called on it, he sat puzzled and stared into the camera for almost 25 seconds in silence and couldn't name or list a single thing?
Or the time Nenshi also wanted him formally apologize to the entire group of councilors at one meeting for blasting them on his social media page(s) for views, to which he sat in silence for almost a minute and then candidly said that an apology wasn't going to be coming.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Royle9

We're talking about Farkas guys, the guy is a nut job through and through.
His feelings are always hurt, and he's got that thing where he has to try and be the smartest man in the room all the time.

The Canadian Taxpayer Federation Way of Life

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Royle9

We're talking about Farkas guys, the guy is a nut job through and through.

No, he isn't. Yes he has (or at least had) a proclivity towards grandstanding which is a turn off but he seems like a normal rational person regardless of whether you agree with him or not. I might vote for him this time... we'll see... my vote this time is swayable. Just no Sharpe or Davison please.

[CliffFletcher]

This isn’t that uncommon. Candidates do mail-out polling to find out what riles up voters. Then when they hold town halls or canvas door-to-door, they make sure to mention the top issues from the feedback. It’s pretty cynical, but it’s also politics as usual.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Can you explain what is misleading and inaccurate about the statement?

I think you're more than capable of seeing it yourself (if you were actually interested in doing so).

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

After his exile for being a nut job, he came back and was contrite. I had high hopes for him learning from that and becoming a good leader candidate.

But now I see he is back to his grand standing. He just lost my vote.

I feel the same. I had hopes he had changed, perhaps not.

[Locke]

He's just asking questions tho...just asking questions...

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

After his exile for being a nut job, he came back and was contrite. I had high hopes for him learning from that and becoming a good leader candidate.

But now I see he is back to his grand standing. He just lost my vote.

I'll be honest. Call me a skeptic, but Farkas coming back after his spiritual journey and doing a 180 felt kind of fake to me, like he's got an ulterior motive of trying to soften his image to take a second run at being mayor. Guy just has a real off putting vibe about him that I don't fully trust.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think you're more than capable of seeing it yourself (if you were actually interested in doing so).

Thanks, I am capable and interested, but I can’t see it, which is why I asked. I wouldn’t have asked if I could have.

I’m guessing the non-response means I’m correct in not seeing anything misleading or inaccurate (not including the name typo, obviously).

[Kipper_3434]

85% Funded by taxpayers AND ticket purchasers. Just had to combine those two eh?

[Goriders]

Lets reopen debate about the arena’s funding agreement when it’s half built.

Good idea.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

People are overthinking this. Nothing is going to happen to the arena deal. He’s not trying to stir anything up.

He’s literally just taking the temperature of people to see what makes sense to focus on in his campaign. The election is five months away.

What's with people lately? It's like they've given up on thinking for nearly everything that they randomly go into overthinking mode for the remainder. Neither is of any use.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Lets reopen debate about the arena’s funding agreement when it’s half built.

Good idea.

10% built, if that.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Thanks, I am capable and interested, but I can’t see it, which is why I asked. I wouldn’t have asked if I could have.

I’m guessing the non-response means I’m correct in not seeing anything misleading or inaccurate (not including the name typo, obviously).

Just because it's not technically inaccurate, it's extremely slanted and tries to take a multifaceted discussion and dumb it down to a question that is presented in such a simple manner as to elicit one response, anger.

The question basically says, do you support taking tax payer money and giving all.proceeds to billionaires. No logical person says yes to that. But that is such an insultingly dumb attempt to break down the arena discussion it should be derided as such, especially as the question serves no purpose than to rile up potential voters.

Stop the divisive nature of politics. Don't spend time bemoaning a deal that is already done as a means to garner support. Try spending time discussing what you will do in the future to better the City. Simple.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

85% Funded by taxpayers AND ticket purchasers. Just had to combine those two eh?

Well, yes because the ticket tax will be a significant portion of the 17 million (+1%) CSEC sends to the city each year for 35 years.