Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Found this buried half way down the page at the National Post, can't read much into one poll, we'll have to wait for a few and see if there is a trend. Huge sample size though.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...doled-out-poll

Polls don't matter when it comes to the conservatives

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its funny though. The CPC supporters here seem less worried than the party itself. Earlier this week it was the UCCB where they couldn't wait to hand out money and get recognition for it. Now they're obviously concerned about losing seats in Calgary with the sudden $1.5B infusion here into the Greenline. They can't wait to spend money and buy us things, or just give us money back now! Try to close off a few loose ends with nagging issues like senate reform and they've done all they can I guess. Maybe next week they'll hire a bunch of scientists?

I think that the election call comes August 4th now.

Speaking of the UCCB, have you seen this bullcrap from the NDP and their undoubtedly fictional "Ella" who donated her child benefit cheque to the NDP because she is so angry at Harper? And which has "inspired" the party to use it as a fundraising drive.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...s-to-the-party

Honestly, that is "He's just not ready"-level pathetic.

[Jacks]

Haha that comes off pretty tacky, take the money that is meant for children and donate it to the NDP. No wonder Mulcair said he wouldn't scrap the benefit.

[Coach]

If there is anyone that would use Mulcair thinking Alex was a guy and not a girl, and/or the fact that he pronounced the name of a town wrong, as a reason to not vote for them, I sincerely hope they stay home on election day. Who f***ing cares? What does it have to do with anything?

I can give people the corporate tax rate, he should have known it.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I wasn't really referring to the production value as something that might deter you. I mean, as someone who seems to be an intelligent person, don't you find it at least a little souring that they're seeking to manipulate people this way? Not that you're falling for it or are the target of it necessarily. Just the complete lack of substance involved.

Don't all attack style ads fall into that category though? I don't exactly see these ones as incrementally worse. Do you?

You're right though, this one's taking the path of dumbing down the message to simpleton levels to get the point across. Of course that can be taken as demeaning. The Ignatieff ones on the other hand took the path of trying to scare people with red & black colors and scary noises to get the point across. That's "demeaning" and "manipulative" as well, just a different genre.

Heck, if anything I enjoyed the change of pace from the Ignatief scary boo style and the American shocking quote with the deep voice style. Same **** though, just a different pile.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Don't all attack style ads fall into that category though? I don't exactly see these ones as incrementally worse. Do you?

You're right though, this one's taking the path of dumbing down the message to simpleton levels to get the point across. Of course that can be taken as demeaning. The Ignatieff ones on the other hand took the path of trying to scare people with red & black colors and scary noises to get the point across. That's "demeaning" and "manipulative" as well, just a different genre.

Heck, if anything I enjoyed the change of pace from the Ignatief scary boo style and the American shocking quote with the deep voice style. Same **** though, just a different pile.

No I think the vast majority of attack ads are stupid. They generally leave a sour taste in my mouth unless they're exposing something that is actually relevant and important. IE the Ignatief ones displaying his attendance record. That is relevant to his position and shows he was not a committed worker for the people.

Either way, the ads they played when Ignatief was running have no relevance here.

But I do think some are incremental worse than others. The banners that were posted a few pages back that I quoted shows Harper saying "These tax cuts will help 4 million families" and Trudeau saying "I do not agree with these tax cuts" is one of the worst I've seen. No actual information at all. Who were the cuts supposed to be for? 4 million is a small number when taking the whole country into account. It's a blatant ploy to make people think that any tax cut is going to benefit them somehow. As mentioned about, exposing Ignatief's attendance record actually means something in the context of his ability/commitment to govern.

But yea, overall, they're all pretty dumb, but these ones against Trudeau are taking it to such a new level of stupidity it really makes me think why anyone would support people who think their voting base is really that dumb. And if someone is that dumb, please don't vote.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Found this buried half way down the page at the National Post, can't read much into one poll, we'll have to wait for a few and see if there is a trend. Huge sample size though.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...doled-out-poll

Honestly, this wouldn't surprise me. Look at how many people ate up Ralph Bucks, despite what a terrible idea they were. These same clowns will be bitching next year when they realize they have to claim the cheques on their taxes.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is what's called circular reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Ooo my favorite. The logical fallacy rebuttal. Bonus points for false identification of it.

The Conservative party political machine has proven astute at negative attack ads in the past (A), therefore I'm prepared to assume that they are still good at it (B), therefore I propose that if they are expanding the current campaign it must be working (C).

I have in no way tried to use B or C to justify A. I am merely assuming A to be correct with no justification.

Did I do that right? I didn't major in Philosophy 101. Man, who do I think who am trying to wade into the great field of logical fallacies. I'll leave it to you guys.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by MattyC

If there is anyone that would use Mulcair thinking Alex was a guy and not a girl, and/or the fact that he pronounced the name of a town wrong, as a reason to not vote for them, I sincerely hope they stay home on election day. Who f***ing cares? What does it have to do with anything?

I can give people the corporate tax rate, he should have known it.

I don't think those errors in particular matter but it would be concerning to me if he's continually making errors/mis-speaking on issues he should be prepared for when people the election is called and people start paying attention.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by MattyC

No I think the vast majority of attack ads are stupid.

...

But yea, overall, they're all pretty dumb, but these ones against Trudeau are taking it to such a new level of stupidity it really makes me think why anyone would support people who think their voting base is really that dumb. And if someone is that dumb, please don't vote.

Yup. They're dumb. But they work. And once you recognize them, I enjoy trying to read into them to figure out why they work. i.e. what is the message, who are they targetting, why do they think it'll work, will it work, is it actually working on me subconsciously, why, etc.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Haha that comes off pretty tacky, take the money that is meant for children and donate it to the NDP. No wonder Mulcair said he wouldn't scrap the benefit.

Haha, its not meant for children. This is in place as opposed to a national child care strategy, and really parents can use it anyway they see fit. Its pure vote buying and frankly with the cancellation of the child tax benefit and fact that the UCCB is taxable in the first place what are people actually getting here? Very little. Luckily for the CPC people won't really see that until next April when they file their taxes.

I think that asking people to donate politically with that money is actually a decent idea considering that would offset some of the increased tax you otherwise incur. For the record I think that tax breaks for political donations should be eliminated entirely, but if the rules are there why wouldn't a party recommend this?

[Jacks]

Oh c'mon Slava, who'll think of the poor children with no shoes?

Tom will just blow the money on ties and bus fuel.

[Slava]

I spent mine on beer.

[Jacks]

and ......

[peter12]

I reckon I could use more beer.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Ooo my favorite. The logical fallacy rebuttal. Bonus points for false identification of it.

The Conservative party political machine has proven astute at negative attack ads in the past (A), therefore I'm prepared to assume that they are still good at it (B), therefore I propose that if they are expanding the current campaign it must be working (C).

I have in no way tried to use B or C to justify A. I am merely assuming A to be correct with no justification.

I don't want to derail the thread, but this is what you wrote.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

They're no dummies at the CPC when it comes to this, so the fact that they've got a new round out surely means they're working as intended.

In both situations what you're basically saying is:

"They Conservatives are effective at attack ads, therefore their attack ads are effective."

[afc wimbledon]

'He's not ready, maybe one day' is not an attack ad,

'he's a secret member of Isis that shags goats when he isn't smoking crack' is an attack ad.

[Slava]

Harper's disregard for democracy and our institutions knows no bounds. Basically because he doesn't want to go through constitutional reforms and can't do what he wants with the Senate, he has decided to do nothing. http://globalnews.ca/news/2130231/is...onstitutional/

Of course maybe he's protecting us from his poor appointment selections in the first place. He has a terrible track record of appointees so maybe the plan here is not to make any, thereby saving the embarrassing press conferences that might follow?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Well Trudeau's approval is at a 12 month low (almost entirely at the NDPs gain). Not to suggest that correlation = causation, but I think the ads deserve some credit.

I wonder how long the Conservatives keep stepping on Trudeau's throat before switching to the NDP.

I think that's letting Trudeau off the hook too easily.

the attack ads only make a point if the other evidence fits the perception being created.

If Liberals were being honest about it, they'd be pointing the finger squarely at Trudeau.

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, its not meant for children. This is in place as opposed to a national child care strategy, and really parents can use it anyway they see fit. Its pure vote buying and frankly with the cancellation of the child tax benefit and fact that the UCCB is taxable in the first place what are people actually getting here? Very little. Luckily for the CPC people won't really see that until next April when they file their taxes.

I think that asking people to donate politically with that money is actually a decent idea considering that would offset some of the increased tax you otherwise incur. For the record I think that tax breaks for political donations should be eliminated entirely, but if the rules are there why wouldn't a party recommend this?

child tax credit was cancelled (the one on your income taxes) the child tax benefit (the monthly payment for low/medium income parents) was not cancelled.