Tag Archives: theory

Share track: The Second Global Warming

Advertisements

MPR News Article appears to Explain away a Democrat’s offense as Non-Issue taken out of Context, Not so for Trump or Republicans

ST PAUL, MN–MPR News has pointed out that a video shared by Trump was edited and out of context, when a Democrat said something potentially offensive: “…some people did something,” while referring to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

Acknowledging the above text, and understanding that the MPR article appears to explain the offense away as “edited” and “out of context”, one question comes to mind: How often is an offensive quote from Trump or a Republican, said during a speech or quoted from a larger text, given the same treatment by MPR or mainstream media in general?

Excerpt from MPR article critical of taking words out of full quotes and context when related to a Democrat:

How come the media doesn’t explain why Trump’s offenses aren’t offensive in an article using full quote and the full context of his comments? There are no protests on that irony. Bias maybe?

You will not find Trump’s full speech or the exact context of his comments in this MPR News article, nor will you find an excuse for his offenses, nor will you find even that consideration.

Trump’s quote simply may be edited out of context, but that is not mentioned, we don’t know for certain… There is no “edited” in the headline of their article based on a singular Trump quote:

The way it seems, is if you are a Democrat, a liberal progressive, or left-leaning individual or entity, to the news media, you may be infallible and worth explaining or condoning or making an excuse for or getting a pass, or worthy of being treated fairly. Anything else and you don’t get it. Where is the objectivity in journalism today?

Trump May be Saving Thousands of Dollars a Year HUGELY by Living in Florida

AMERICA, USA–In an obvious revelation, after five minutes of Google research, which no news media has covered, I may have discovered why Trump spends much of his time in Florida, at Mar-a-Lago: tax incentives.

Florida is where I want to live when I retire, logically, after stumbling upon the state’s six-plus-one formula, because there is no way I will be able to afford Minnesota’s progressive fifth highest tax burden in the nation.

Nerdwallet explains:

Florida is a tax haven, get woke.

Any person that wants to be taxed less on things such as everyday life, income, retirement income and property, should check out Florida.

The Sunshine State’s tax incentives may be saving President Trump thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars a year, ermergerd.

The secret is out about Florida, now, and no one is talking about it… No one that is, but me, right here. If you find value in this idea, theory writing, make a donation. Thanks 😊

***

Please consider a donation of any amount, as many already have.

None of the profits made off of advertisements on my blog go to me, the curator, creator, writer.

If you can’t get to my Paypal page because it’s busy, keep trying.

https://www.paypal.me/TSNiebeling

Happy Reading,
TS_

MPR News Reports: “One Rough Month in No Way Proves or Disproves Climate Science”

FROGTOWN, USA–Minnesota received a record amount of snowfall last month, that’s a fact. Let’s look at a direct quote from an MPR article discussing climate change related to that fact:

Yes, it’s been cold. And snowy. But remember: One rough month in no way proves or disproves climate science.

Now, think about that quote in relation to the headline of the article wherein that quote is found, referencing how Minnesota snowfall records “might” be aided by climate change.

Those details considered, how might our snowfall records be aided by climate change, as the headline suggests, when this one record snowfall event in no way proves or disproves climate science, as the article suggests?

Source: MPR article

***

Please consider a donation of any amount, as many already have.

If you can’t get to my Paypal page because it’s busy, keep trying.

https://www.paypal.me/TSNiebeling

Happy Reading,
TS_

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.

A Vikings’ Win when it counts turns Minnesotans into Captain Ahab, hunting his Moby Dick for all Eternity

“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.” -T.S. Eliot

Last night, after the Minnesota Vikings got DESTROYED by the Philadelphia Eagles, I was flipping through channels on my rabbit ears and found the Gregory Peck film version of the classic American novel Moby-Dick. I found this story to be an apropos metaphor for all die-hard Vikings’ fans at the moment, and for eternity. We are all perpetually Captain Ahab looking for the majestic white whale (a Vikings’ Win when it counts), becoming dangerously obsessed, eventual that idea becomes our mental and physical downfall, to the point of mortal apathy. The game last night ended like the Pequod and it’s ill-fated crew: figuratively eviscerated in a vast ocean of literal Eagles fans and defeatist nostalgia. We, us Ahabs, may never get our Moby Dick–that one win to take our Purple Pride to the Superbowl, especially in our hometown (fuck). Ah, but we will all yell at our TVs, clench our fists, ask the whys and hows, and hope every season, as we scream, THAR SHE BLOWS! that this year will be the one in which we the Vikings will win!

Under Control of My Ideas

Maybe my ideas suck just as bad as the next person, no matter how hard I try to make them heard or make them law.  And here, I attempt to control my life in all decisions, I wake up and wonder how in control I am about my ideas. Control over other people’s ideas.  Have I tried to control too much? Too many fingers in too many idea pies? A thought I like to reflect on, old and played-out by now: when you focus on everything you focus on nothing. By making my ideas center stage have I taken the light away from other people’s ideas? I am not sure, but I recall this idea of control: When you attempt to control others you lose control of yourself. I wake up from a dream where I am visiting a counselor, she says that same thing, like a past life, as if it’s true. I know it now.  Oddly, I concede and take it all back because I know dreams can be right.  I know because they have been. Who is in control of my ideas, what ways can they show it through listening and relating under control?