Right-wing tactics utilize intentional overt flaws (similar to how the Nigerian scams utilize intentional bad language and ill logic to appear as open and weak but more relateable for appearing weak.) This relates to the Machiavellian tactic of being bold regardless of one's clear flaws, and to embrace double-speak as though by accident. For instance, Trump uses the phonetic sound conflict between, "they're" and "their". Then you list statements using one but not the other until the last sentence in which you can flip the meaning with intentional confusion:

"They are bringing their criminals; they are bringing their weak; (They are bringing) their rapist." Leaving out the first part then appears as being on of either, 

? "They're rapists"  is phonetically ambivalent to also mean, "...their rapists". The similar sound with different meanings is an overt use of both ellipses and apparent coincidental double speak without one being able to prove which is meant. The fact that Trump doesn't correct this is then intentional so as to appeal to a larger audience that happens to include the racists who presume he meant that all Mexicans are racist.

Left-wing tactics utilize intentional ellipses (= rhetoric that begs others to fill the gaps, like silence.) People prefer less words as profound because EACH person witnessing the propaganda fill in the blank spaces with content that comes out of their own mind, like how generic love songs are more popular than specific songs with clear stories or expressed views.

[This is more powerful for the democratic mindset since it is based upon all people's desire to read into things rather than be TOLD directly. But it is more intentional since we assume these personalities as 'wiser' and more likable universally.]

Those who are poor who may approve are due more to the relative contrast of having no job versus SOME job, regardless of how unsatisfactory such conditions are. And those doing the hiring OF those on the bottom are from those who embrace these kind of conservative-friendly laws. So the poor person granted at least SOME job is going to be forced to favor them (the "Right") over those from the "Left" who prefer hiring in exclusion of these people for some reason or other. [Today the exclusionary factor is an inappropriate genetic bias of those associated with the most conservative culturally biased: Euro-white males, or other stereotypical associations based upon  irrelevant external appearances.

....AND, who is doing the 'approval'? Those with the 'jobs' or the employers getting the extra benefits for 'saving' more money by the exploitation?

Define 'job'! 

The most popular means to "increase" JOBS statistically by governments is to reduce the bar on what 'job' is defined as and then create incentives to businesses to hire two people for what used to be 'one job'.

For example, to create the illusion of job creation, governments redefine a 'job' to be something like, "any employment of a person who works 20 hours per week". Then, an incentive is offered to businesses to hire more part-time workers rather than full-time workers by permitting those who do to not require paying benefits to those workers as might be for those with more than 20 hours per week. This certainly 'creates jobs' but reduces the average pay per 'job'. It also penalizes the part-time worker in that they now require 2 or more jobs just to survive. 

So your confidence in more 'jobs' by Trump is likely misleading of the real benefits.

I'm not in Ontario so don't have a role. But I only noticed you as the only activity this morning and was commenting on how you initiated the comments about 'socialism' and 'liberalism' as a lead in argument to the latter part which others CAN agree to. The agreement to your end is also what the others want. You have to appeal TO the meanings more specifically if you want the other side members to vote your preference. Otherwise you are only appealing to those who are already voting your way. Then you could just say, "hey friends, see you at the Conservative congregation after election...we'll share a beer."

"freebies"? ...like inheritance?

"tax"? ...like what a service like a "taxi" might charge for trade?

"big spending"...like how a government might spend money on large armies and weapons industry?

"no jobs" ....like those who lack POWER of ownership to BE the bosses of their own castle to hire themselves or FORCE those kings and queens who do to hire and PAY them in equal and fair trade? (a 'job' is also what a slave does even if they don't get paid for whatever reason)

"union" like the 'union' of collective business organizations or States intending to unify as strength in democratic numbers?

"Sanctuary", as in safe havens of those who can be so fortunate to inherit enough wealth to build strong castle walls to prevent the degenerate masses of people they exploit to topple them over in power?

How does "socialist" or "liberal" get interpreted derogatory by you? That is, you appear to be asking this as though everyone already believes your interpretation that these things ARE bad prior to establishing this as 'true'.