Category Archives: Voting

How Trump’s “Secret Weapon” may have Bought the Election from Facebook for $100 Million Dollars and You just Updated your Facebook Status

Before you read this thesis watch the entire video that I share with you above. Watch it for the information about Facebook and social media, not because you dislike or like a politician, or for politically motivated reasons.

Observe this video from a marketing and social media engineering point of view. That is how the below thesis is posed.  This is in no way a political statement.  This is purely for observational purposes.

Thank you for reading in advance.  Also, you can donate to keep my blog current, and the information relevant.  Any amount helps, even a dollar.  Click the donate button.  You rock!

***

Parscale attributed the success of his vast social media presence to using the assistance offered by companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Google. He said that because the Trump campaign intended to spend $100 million on social media, companies in that area were prepared to assist the campaign in using that money effectively.[18]

“The campaign poured money into Facebook, sending thousands of versions of tweaked ads to maximize response. Then it won the presidency by a margin narrow enough that Parscale (and Facebook) can justifiably take credit.”[19]

— Philip Bump, The Washington Post”

Link: Brad Parscale

***

The contentious 2016 United States Presidential Election may have been won with a $100 million dollars, a “secret weapon”, and Facebook when used together.  Or it may have been won by any other boilerplate theory out there that can be backed by anyone, by any entity, with any statistics.

Either way, for all intents and purposes, the “secret weapon” in this theory is Brad Parscale, and his tool was/is Facebook.

Perhaps, I want to believe that the 2016 election was won honestly and fairly because I am a thoughtful American citizen and I have hope, but the more I look at the events, the more I see glaring inconsistencies in media stories of Russian Collusion and a general disbelief or ineffective attempt to look at the bigger picture objectively.  Social media played a HUGE role in this particular election, perhaps, as much so, or more, as any outside forces.

I aver, when looking at possibilities, generally we must look at everything, even information that has been overlooked from 10/08/2017 about Brad Parscale’s use of Facebook’s data/advertising tools to amass a successful, though debated, campaign–one which basically won the presidency, putting his candidate in the White House.

Moreover, to me,  the most concerning part of imagining, assessing, or thinking openly that Facebook et al. was used, with money, to command an election in such a way is that people still use the platform religiously every day without question as they cast blame/credit elsewhere.  Perhaps this is being oblivious, or willfully blind.  It can’t be Facebook, right?

Reality check: It definitely can be Facebook.  The reality is an inordinate amount of people are plugged into something (social media) that they wholly do not understand (I am in that boat), and marketers, salespeople, and data analysts are taking full advantage of that reality. (Beknownst, unbeknownst to all.) And how they do that advantageous venture is with huge, huge sums of purposed money.

Perhaps, purposed money and novel strategy, with a “secret weapon”, is what won the 2016 presidential election, along with a special tool of course: Facebook (when utilized by Brad Parscale).  Perhaps there are other entities pulling strings, but Parscale and his efforts warrant consideration, and notation.

Beyond Parscale and social media, the secondary key in this thesis is the $100 million dollars went to marketing–the unprecedentedly complex advertising itself, and the lack of the Clinton campaign to embed Facebook and other social media employees within their campaign offices, as the Trump campaign did.  And this may have swayed the election.  I consider this maneuver to be out of touch in the age of social media.  That’s glaringly foolish, in my opinion.

It’s like going to the World Series and leaving all your big hitters on the bench, extremely odd for a veteran politician…

Now, after these events, it sounds obvious to have key workers from these social media entities within your organization. Have one of the most influential and most recognized companies on your side in the most important race on the planet, possibly.  Don’t leave much to chance. That is not genius, that is obvious. It wasn’t to some, clearly.

Further, not having social media on your side on your account seems very out of touch with reality. Even if you despise Facebook and are not a member of the brand, you have to recognize that it is a powerful tool for connecting people everywhere. For example, I am not on Facebook anymore but I realize it’s marketing potential, (I also realize at Christmastime that my parents and in-laws like to connect with high school friends.  I don’t know why…  I use email).

Bringing it home, the video above is not only astonishing to me, because I am just learning about Brad Parscale, and because of the information it gives on the key marketing tactics used within social media to win an election and manipulate a demographic of people is vast and accurate, but this technology seems potentially dangerous. The scary part in any situation is that money seems to make that happen. If money wanted you to be a modern zombie or a group think solider it would already be happening.  And maybe you wouldn’t know.  You’d just go with it and update your status.  Probably not though, you are smart. 🙂

Accordingly, maybe someday we can better predict the future of everything, that is my prediction for the future.

For what it’s worth, with much of the media linking Parscale to Russia and basically making him look like a Sith lord in  article photos, I think he could certainly be a critical part of understanding the 2016 presidential election, and definitely to harnessing momentum in future elections.  At least his methods are very straightforward, in appearance, and no-nonsense.  Definitely they are of interest.

His use of social media tools to reach an audience with a campaign message has never been done before at such a level, and he has worked on “zero” elections before.

In general, that utilization of resources–if that is what it truly was, is progressive and inspiring to me.  He has been overlooked; and he is right there in front of us.  As is the power of social media, but we have other excuses.  Russia is scary and influenced the election. Trump may have cheated, etc. Any narrative is believable. But look at how many people around you are on Facebook clicking around, social media, exposing themselves to it all.  Marketing is more common than the other alleged threats.  I hope you like this post.

What influence.  What money and focused ideas can buy.

Advertisements

BREAKING NEWS: No Study Ever finds that your Life is Fated by Pennies, People, and Problems

This week has changed my life. Events unfolded and I became apart of the solution. This fix took up a week, and a majority of my time allotted for other projects. But the things I did learn through experience taught me one thing– oh, and finding pennies and Easter Eggs throughout let me know that I was where I was supposed to be, like everyone else is–it taught me to take it as it comes. Be where I am when I am right here right now.

Firstly, events take place, happen, go down, and unfold beyond our humanly control. (I read a tweet about this: worry is a waste of time, the past is the past, we cannot worry about things we cannot change, etc.) I understand I cannot change the past I can only change the future, hopefully. In this new “special project” I have found that positivity is the only way to move forward together. We must move onward positively together. Getting down or bummed or saddened about something will only hamper your forward progress.

Secondly, everywhere I went this week I was met with a smile–or by the end of the meeting, a smile had fixed a frown or a grimace, at least in most cases. Furthermore, I kept finding pennies placed throughout my experiences. I got lost, found a penny. Someone needed me to do an alternative task, I found a penny. At the train station, found a penny. In this, I don’t believe pennies are lucky. But if I find a lot of pennies, a lot of pennies add up. Or maybe god is buying me a beer, I have no way to knowing. Also, these finds act like checkpoints for my life. Look for your pennies and you will see dollars. Then retrace your steps along that path, how did you come by three cents?! WOW! 🙂

The most important part to all of this is the worry factor. I read this last night, for a moment. The last few days, I saw people worried, upset, and frustrated. I stayed calm. I have no idea how. I just stayed calm and collected. Because it is how we act during times of uncertainty that matter most. (Someone famous said that, or something similar). Beyond the stress, the unpredictability, I was learning something unique, something new. Something different. It didn’t matter what; but if you are doing something different from your regular routine, you are learning something new. Remember that in a shitty situation that you have never had to deal with before.

Some people could say their week was a wash, many others could call it a major success. And the point here is, this is every week, could be every moment. They did something. They made something happen. The reason this contrast is important is because we can see life in this way every day, or in another way. One day it is shit. One day it is good. Four letters, two different ideas completely. Why can’t they all be good? Why can’t we make it as such? And I think we can. Thought I would share.

You have made it here, right where are you are supposed to be. Now go look for your pennies.

Male circumcision is genital mutilation: the sharp unconcerned gender disparity as written by news media language

circ-egypt

Frogtown, USA–I never really thought about the topic of circumcision much, especially in relation to change or making change within–I think my fate is sealed, was sealed before my brain could function enough to say perhaps “no, sounds painful”.

Maybe once in high school though I thought about it being a private matter.  The idea of male circumcision and what it meant.  I still don’t understand much about it, however many males in America are circumcised.  I think the act could be because of religion or because of hygiene, it could be.

You see, I won’t research that.  I don’t care if it is because of “religion” or “hygiene”, they why doesn’t matter.

The matter at hand is that male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” happen and there are limited media reports of them in comparison to female “genital mutilation” stories.  I find it odd that a prevalent practice performed on one gender (male) is considered normal while a similar practice performed on another gender (female) is considered a news worthy, and possible criminal charge.  And, as a self-identified male, I find this a bit unfair.  (But that doesn’t fit into the Narrative.) download

I do not believe female “genital mutilation” or “circumcisions” should make the news if, at the same time, a majority of male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” do not make the news in an equal capacity.

And yet, why is there little concern that “most adult men are circumcised“.  Does this not concern the media or the activists that wish to protect human rights.  Also, why is male “circumcision” not considered ubiquitously as male “genital mutilation”?

Recent news stories focused on female “genital mutilation” prompted me to delve back into the topic of “circumcision” in males, that, and the experience of having a baby boy.

As a parent I have to decided the fate of my child’s physical dimensions.  There is no cry from protesters or the pundits when it comes to this private and personal decision at the hospital, not view as damage or irreversible harm but rather as an “option” to think about before birth.

So, think about this, as from above most American males are “circumcised”, or have experience “genital mutilation”.  In recent years, however, male circumcisions in America are on the decline.  Why is this?  Perhaps because male circumcision is actually male “genital mutilation”, period, and the mainstream media doesn’t care.

They play with terminology when it works with their ideology, but cutting flesh from one person is the same as cutting from another, no matter race, creed, or gender.  images

In conclusion, the decision to “circumcise” or to “mutilate” not is a highly personal decision, and a final one.  Accordingly, I believe that not only do we need to reconsider how we change our bodies but how we change the bodies of the future.

Moreover, I believe we need to understand and keep meanings and definitions in relation to words and genders equal, especially within news media language and context; we observe male “circumcisions” or  “mutilations” as somehow not as equally alarming as female genital mutilation.  Perhaps the lack of concern shown to one gender over another by mainstream news is the actual shocking news story that everyone wants but no one wants to hear.

As a self-identified male, I haven’t heard of any bills being made to save our (fore)skins, pun intended, in relation to “circumcisions” or actual male “genital mutilation”.  Alike, I think all “genital mutilation”, in relation to all genders, is mutilation, destruction, and potentially a crime which disfigures the human body.  Reconsider this when the idea arises in local reports or national breaking news.  download.jpg

Language is the key to this matter.  You call something “circumcision” and then you call something “genital mutilation”, on the grounds of gender, and you assume a bias in the language you use to describe an action.  Which is which?

That is the crux of this biscuit, the matter at hand.  If we use the somewhat necessary innocuous and accepted language to describe an horrendous act, is that act then acceptable, and should that act be called something different depending on who it is done to?  Because that happens now, today, on the topic put forth above.

***

I am no advocate, activist, or professional on the topic “genital mutilation”.  I am merely stating concern over the potential bias within the media coverage of one agenda over another, one gender over another, through language and terminology.

These are my views.  I am open to free discussion and open dialogue on the topic of circumcision/genital mutilation, please comment as necessary.  Thank you for reading.  No hate please, I try to stay positive.

 

 

Gorsuch’s fate to be decided by bipartisan singing competition, Democrats and Republicans both agree that they love The Voice

ap_17080498237581

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch laying down the law about singing competition as he raises both hands for two questions confusedly during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Photo by MPR/AP

What seemed a strange outcome to what would potentially be a interminable filibuster, which would then transpire into the ever dreaded “nuclear option”, government representatives have agreed to settle their contrasting differences in an unprecedented singing competition, because both parties love The Voice.

Tension soared to new heights on Monday as Democrats poised to block the Gorsuch vote and waste more time just talking (for lack of purpose)–which they have immense practice at, and as the Republicans estimated ways they could eventually change the rules by reinterpreting them as not to break them.  Then, a silver lining, wonderful idea: sing it the fuck out.  Now instead of meaningless jabber, they will serenade!

In this astonishing change of heart, all humility was saved by what was at first a quiet suggestion of a fair competition, one that Russia could certainly not hack or manipulate the paramount results of, and still, a game that would give any one group an option to decide who is more right than the other unequivocally.  That’s when Gorsuch made the suggestions himself.

It was a risky move that was taken–very necessary though, very… to put that novel idea forward into the shark tank of US politics, and for once all parties agreed on something for a total of 20 seconds… an anonymous, yet, highly reliable source onlooker unaffiliated with CNN said.  It was incredible.  God… it was like they wasted the last year and just did something.  Holy shit.  Wow.  This is AMAZING… it’s like a kale salad.  another legitimate anonymous source partaking not associated with MPR said off the record.

Gorsuch went on to graciously expound that he got his unique concept of a singing competition from watching hit network television show The Voice, he thought of fixing all the world’s problems by singing about them seems absolutely realistic, and ironically very similar to a filibuster but more upbeat.  And everyone loves The Voice.

Today politicians are going to use their voices for the voices of the American people because of The Voice, and Gorsuch, and in this competition determine once and for all Gorsuch fate and the future of America.  

Minnesota politician tries new material at Gorsuch confirmation hearing, mistaken for slam poetry open mic

This week a Minnesota politician mistakenly thought the Gorusch confirmation hearing was a slam poetry open mic, the style found at most beat coffee houses and in modern literature press events.  Accordingly the critics in earshot found the new material lackluster, overdone, and out of context.

Unfortunately, the new material Franken had was dry, hyperbolic, one-sided, and as expected, negative, certainly when speaking to Gorusch in thinly veiled exaggerations, said one anonymous official.  A member of the audience expressed that they didn’t know whether to laugh or show sympathy for the long-time poet.

Nonetheless, throughout the week news media outlets have covered how unbelievably interesting and important the Gorusch confirmation hearing is; no one thought that anyone would have any issues with Trump’s pick, it’s a real shocker–headline material.  So these apropos readings of banal poetry broke the tension and left many confused.

Online Petitions (as Pennies in a Wishing Well)

“Everything that is beautiful and noble is a product of reason and calculation.” -Charles Baudelaire

St Paul, MN- In my opinion, petitioning everything we find disagreeable on the internet, that takes place in the United States of America, is like posting a new status on Facebook, or any other social media platform, it becomes useless.  To me, this action does very little, because those forums are monitored and controlled, like throwing a penny into a wishing well–it takes the intention out of the actor’s perception, it takes the accountability out of the petitioner’s (wisher’s) hands and puts the issue in a free fall of liquidity, placing the issue on something larger and misunderstood.  I guess I miss the reason, intention, and calculation of speaking to deaf ears.

Petitioning so visibly against matters on social media creates the same sort of sentiment that one sees when one throws a penny into a wishing well. The shiny object, the cent, goes away from our observation and into certain darkness.  The viewer of this spectacle finds that the actor in this setting has hope, has promise, has a wish with meaning. The penny falls and that is that. There is that nugget of hope left at the bottom of a wishing well. Accordingly, the petition is sent out, put forth, and left on the interwebs away from those with the ability to make change, and there it sits.  (I will attest that these petitions seem a spectacle for the mainstream media to make pennies off of as well, generating a story, while stoking a teasing interest.)

In relation to this metaphor, I aver we do something different for change, instead of a spectacle for others, we create a spectacle for ourselves.  Instead of casting a penny away, as an idea, or as a concern for a concept by writing or signing a petition, that may or may not get seen by eyes with authority and the ability to create change, one must, perhaps, write legislature, or run for office themselves; make the change they desire by becoming this change. Create the change you want by following your wishes or petitions to the top, to the office you aspire to. So often ideas become clouded by group-think and the initial principal becomes diluted, creating very little change.  With an individual seeing this principal through to fruition, those outside forces may be hampered.

The real matter at hand with petitions and pennies, perhaps, may be the level of accountability the person doing the signing, or throwing, or writing cares to do and be responsible for. We sign things all the time, this act is commonplace autonomous. I sign for coffee, I sign for sandwiches, I sign for others, I sign for packages, and I sign for beer. You do too!  How is this any different in a serious way, signing for something that is entirely important or unimportant to me? (Is changing the system important to you?  And how important?)  I find in order for change it must be a step above that kind of signing, a bit more convoluted, this giving up autonomy and comfort for belief.

Signing a petition on the internet for something you believe wholeheartedly may feel good.  You may feel you have done your part, but what part? Does this signing lack fervor though?  And how much will that well-meant signature do? To make change there must be the same amount of initiative or action or motivation as in the thought that caused it. Putting a status update on social media takes a few clicks, signing your signature is a swipe of the wrist–conditioning at this point–perhaps, neither of these actions are revolutionary (singularly alone). With them, there is only a wish and an idea thrown away, as the penny in the wishing well.  So how important is your status update or your signature for petitioning change in comparison to every other one placed in a universe of texts and signatures?

***

On the video at the top of this essay, and the “Faithless Elector” movement (I didn’t watch it, the thumbnail was nice.  So I used it.) Further, we knew about the electoral college and how it worked many years ago, perhaps it is as old as the American republic.  I will cite, as John C. Dvorak of the No Agenda Podcast pointed out, where some of the inspiration for my piece comes, and I paraphrase–I hope I do justice, change the system, change the law!  Again, I paraphrase, but the gist is there.  Change the way we do things, the system, and change the law.  Hear more from him at No Agenda Podcast.  And if you perceive me wrong, I guess I am witnessing the forest for the trees, I am missing their timber.  Change may take more effort than an online trend, spectacle, or people holding well-made signs.

Recount: Clinton’s Double Jeopardy; How Hillary will Win the 2016 Presidential Election

“My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

RT

Firstly, I will say that I am obsessed with the recount. I cannot go for a few hours without checking it, the news. This recount affinity is an intriguing part of my life. I enjoy critiquing the news and pundits and both sides of the parties–that never get’s old apparently, to me. Even though it is shit. Nothing changes–and nothing will. It is as if I still have Facebook. Sometimes I can’t escape it. That kind of social media… Those kind of clicks on a website. It is HUGE. Big money for “real” news. This recount thing is going to make history.

I must also say, holy shit. I never thought I would say this, but I think Hillary will actually win this thing. She will enact her magical double jeopardy of a recount; waiting for the blame to be called first, by Trump, having patience, calling in a favor, and then pouncing with limited time to form a proper and meaningful defense by the presumed winner. It seems too obvious now. The long wait (3 weeks have others have said), the third party candidate comes out of nowhere seemingly for innocuous purposes (globalist), and the media says the recount won’t change anything.

(To cover that last part, the media was wrong about the entire election. What makes them so sure that they will be right this time about the recount? I am not so sure, as a matter of fact I am concerned about how many news outlets say a change in votes is “highly unlikely” or “near impossible” or a “long-shot”. To me this talk directly mirrors the rhetoric used by the media to describe the chances of Trump winning the 2016 presidential election. (Which he did.) Pollsters had it wrong, the media bought in; now the media says they have it right, no count change in the recount, and most are buying in. Fuck.)

Aside from the above hypothesizing, the recount is really good for getting people to read the headline of an article only. Just throw in the word: recount. Put whatever shit you want to in the paragraphs below it: hyperbole, emotion, fallacies, etc. They will read. If you are a mainstream site you’ll get hits. If you are a WordPress blogger, yours truly, you may get someone to look harder at your page for a second. From onset of the recount, one thing I do appreciate is that talking about how horrible Trump’s transition team is won’t hold traction for long, for news sources, this is obvious. I won’t be the person to regurgitate this prediction. Thank you, No Agenda Show.

I posit, with celerity: Trump lost footing from the start by saying in the debates that he would challenge the election results. (No shit. I would too if it were warranted.) His opponent only needed him to say it once before they started pulling it apart; they are lawyers, these are words. Hillary conceded: she plays the victim now–people sympathize–and who couldn’t, only standing up again because others stood up for her. And of course no one will have the energy or time before inauguration to say, hey let’s recount the recount. This is after Hillary is ready to take office. Ready to play the role she has practiced for her whole life.

It sounds stupid, and easy. I know it’s a short theory, half-concocted, ridiculous, and thick with what a regular person would call a conspiracy theory. Yet, as my stepfather said over the phone the other night nothing would surprise him about this election. Certainly the media is making out great with these scatalogical themed stories. They come out ahead, ironically, seldom behind. If by chance something crazy happens in the recount–new votes are found, mysteriously, or if the numbers just don’t add up–don’t be surprised. No one has the right to be. We live in a world where losers no longer lose.

I’ll be straightforward with you, I got nervous the second people started discussing the date of December 19th, when the electoral college places their actual vote. I didn’t even know that was the date. And I have written more on the electoral college than most of my ex-progressive liberal alt-left friends have, the ones who came about and told me I was stupid for thinking that the electoral college would vote for us all, so don’t vote. Well, they did. And I did. Oops. Probably should have read that history. Now they want to change the rules of the game they played so hard to win. What do you do tho?

So, on December 20th, when you wake up to find Hillary Clinton has been elected president, don’t be surprised. It’s Clinton’s Double Jeopardy, she can’t lose the recount, even though she already lost the election; it was set in motion at the debates–when no one would accept the results, really. I mean, it is entirely possible. Don’t for one second skim through the headlines and think, oh, it couldn’t happen, because that happened to the majority of the popular voting people of America. They thought they had it. Don’t be like them. Don’t be sad.