======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
It’s 2015, which means we are about to kick off a 12-month period of non-stop political advertisements. Political ads are all about “informing the voters,” or so they say they are. Who supports who, who has done what, revealing secrets Person X is hiding in their closet, etc. They are inherently stupid, but there an integral part of the political process.
Well, most of them are, anyway. Sometimes you get ads like this where, even after further examination and analysis, we are still left with unanswered questions:
What the fuck is going on here?
I’ve got some thoughts I’d like to share. Why doesn’t the dad carry a briefcase home from work? Why does this grown baby child insist on being carried like an infant? Why is the daughter wearing a vest inside when it is clearly sunny and warm? What kind of weird family makes their whole plate before touching the salad?
I guess none of these questions matter anymore, considering this whole family has been eviscerated in an attack that most likely started World War III: The Beginning of the End of Earth.
The ad, which you can find above or on the Foundation for American Security and Freedom YouTube page, is similar to the 1964 Democrat Daisy ad supporting Lyndon Johnson:
Johnson was criticized for promoting such a sensationalized ad during the Cold War, when nukes were an actual threat. If that was sensationalism, and I’m not arguing that it isn’t, then I have no idea how to classify this new ad.
It’s sensationalism factored by 1000. It’s politics at its very core. It’s bending the rules on artistic value. It’s amazing and I love it.
Please, we need more ads like these before November 2 rolls around. Make more, crazy people. Make them for America..
Image via YouTube
The two adds are only similar in that they both revolve around nukes. LBJ’s add is used today as a textbook example of a “false dichotomy” (we must either love each other or die). It is a lackluster attempt to appeal to the Pathos of the people (the weakest of all 3 types of rhetoric).
The first add is an attack on Rand Paul’s Ethos (his credibility) as a politician. These adds are rather different when observing the message.
I’ve never seen this type of addition in any math textbook. Rather morbid for 1st graders isn’t it?