Trump, twitter and game rules.
Watch and think about media role. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg
I used Twitter's format to write an example of the negative role of the media, using the example of an episode of "House of cards" and note that it cannot be done. The location is not enough. Twitter's format is best suited to anonymous ranting or very short notices. That is exactly what it is - he did it, it is bad, we are smarter, he did it wrongly and it is purely rhetoric.
It is interesting to note that real media was the basis for the media's role in the "Ugly Tower" episode of the series "House of Cards". The story is not about Underwood's personality, but the media.
President Underwood has a very tight work schedule. Meanwhile, a driving teenager writes text messages and crashes.
Usually, after such an event, the main thought would be to express condolences to the relatives and to remind everyone that driving and texting are incompatible. Some statistics and some specialist advice would be the helpful and appropriate answer to this situation.
But Underwood is a politician and the media needs to influence and belittle this man.
A teenager wrote messages about an ugly tower built by a member of Underwood's party. She crashed and died. Who is responsible?
Think of crooked political and media logic - we can blame the president! The driver wrote comments about an ugly tower, built by a politician!
Underwood is a real politician, who's focused on getting votes, so he goes to the scene, asking for forgiveness and gives a speech in the church, resolves all political trouble, recovers lost political votes and returns home to deal with real problems.
So - what does the media do here - panders to the lowest instincts, initiates a primitive discussion process and misleads the public about the cause and effect relationship.
So, in such an environment, how can we qualitatively discuss serious problems, such as unemployment, improving qualifications and training for the jobless, health care, each voter's responsibility for something for which they should take responsibility?
So, what about Twitter, media and Trump? Someone says something hideous about Trump, his relatives or his daughter's business and then wait for Trump's personal and sharp answer. If you are lucky, Trump defenders respond and then liberal media accuse Trump of a lack of governmental action, rudeness or ignorance.
This game is very similar to bullying in school.
What about Sweden? Are there some problems with immigrants? Yes, there are. Create fake news about an incident in Sweden, wait for Trump's reaction and then react as though there are no problems. Never.
So, let's think about real media. Are they similar to those in House of cards? Sometimes, it could be said, yes. Sometimes there is real information and sometimes not.
At first we find some of the concepts. My understanding of liberalism and liberals is probably a little different from the generally accepted view. Liberalism as a theory argues that people need all sorts of freedom both to do and to think and to judge others. However, the question as to what is the environment that man has received the information from and how he is able to constantly judge and whether he is able to resist the lies and manipulation are not discussed at all or very insufficient.
There are still two very important concepts that are closely linked to this. The first - to which extent people have to help, support and protect each other from the effects of the decision itself. This usually refers to children or people's right to do something and work in well-regulated professions, such as working as a crane driver.
The state may in its domestic laws restrict some sort of action, if it really does not trust its citizens' ability to make sound judgments and subsequent actions causing harm to themselves and their families, State laws can be changed, if it does not trust its citizens and they can do something that the state will then have compensate them for. Quick loans which are taken during the day, in the evening or even at night on their own bodies, which they probably intended very differently, perhaps they think only of enjoyment and waste the family’s savings in a casino.
It's all written here in order to once again remind you that not everything is always allowed too, people themselves need to somehow control themselves and the abuse of impunity is detrimental to both the country and the people themselves.
In any case, a practical politician well understands both how real this problem is and what to say to the wives whose husbands used the quick and easy credit to spend the family budget in a casino and what to say to the unscrupulous men who wants to have a good rest without their money. Here lies the problem, both to please the voters and make a good decision.
If friendly oriented media support a politician, they supported him when he says one thing to irresponsible husbands, they will also be support himed when he says something quite different to rampant wives and they will also support him when he gives a nationalistic speech as an opportunity to balance freedom with restrictions on freedom on behalf of the common good. If the media do not support a politician, then the opposite can occur both restrictions on freedom and the inability to legally restrict stupid behavior and inconsistencies.
It should be remembered that this example is primitive and usually all causal interaction is not so clearly visible.
The second concept is very important - calling and binding names. Liberals presented themselves as a group, that is correct, fair, wise, noble and, free from biased influences and like-minded politicians and their media also lay claim to these labels. Liberal media critics usually label those they disagree with negatively, using terms like redneck, fools, racists or, macho, regardless of whether or not there is any reason to do this.
This subtype of concept is to stick something lower to something higher, which already has a certain significance. You can, for example, called everyone you do not like a Nazi, and in some way interfere with, for example, how the child makes his bed, which he dislikes and say, that his mother is the Nazis..
A few more notes - awareness of specific issues. An example of bad driving and the child's unwillingness to make his bed and his mother's supposed Nazi behaviours is very simple and for the ordinary consumer, they should be well understood, but how to explain complex issues, such as the world's energy problems and various types of hydrocarbon energy value, availability and enviromental impact. How many people in the population differentiate potential energy and the greenhouse effect for coal, natural gas and petroleum products? Are people able to understand issues, such as trade restrictions and an attempt to make more use of its native resources, not only is it an economic and democratic problem, less transport with large sea container vessels means less pollution from low-quality, sulfur-containing fuel and a smaller plant and animal disease distribution and alien pests invasive species in agriculture? Not only bad and good, different shades of grey.
Here if a medium forgot to say something - 1% very significant shine, you are now able to ensure that the common consumer reached an inappropriate conclusion. Something does not say anything at all and the result is over-reacting and a poor understanding of the whole topic and problem.
Easier, of course, is to write about personalities, one imagines for good, others - as bad, incompetent, and the like. Narrow-minded, good or-evil-minded audience categories are ideal material with which to manipulate. No shades of grey.
It is very important to understand that the liberal media are not discouraged when they do not fool the audience and uses the lowest instincts to confuse and cause yourself desirable reactions.
Liberal media can not directly influence the times tables to adjust every time a consumer awareness of incorrect mathematics, although I also have a remotely similar example where due to politically correct reasons, some numerical perception has to change.
This time, look at some real discussion that took place on women's rights to decide on their own ova. The very discussion begins, leaving aside men's and women's equality legislation. The main idea - men, here, you can donate sperm, but the women had some kind of limitations and it is illegal, growing deprivation and inadequate to the spirit of the 21st century. Any statement made by opponents began with the fact that a woman is fundamentally very significantly different from the man, disregarding this, was immediately attacked by the legal arguments put forward as the main emphasis on women's rights.
I can imagine that quite a large proportion of people do not perceive what then is so wrong, see the following egg donation issue from a legal point of view. The so-called equality advocates simply do not perceive the difference between males and females donating. It is in this phase of development that a usually manipulative lyuing media, hiding behind the masks of rights defenders, generally accuse opponents of sexism and women's rights limitations.
I assume that those who did not quite get why this issue is not only a legal approach are already tired of waiting, so they will reveal the secret - women and men are different biologically and a man donating sperm practically repeated a biological process, but the woman being artificially stimulated with drugs which can damage her body, and can have consequences. So a true legal attitude would be that the woman before the procedure should be informed as to the risks and only then can she decide what to do or not to do. It is important to make informed choices and it is important that this information is widely available. Then the woman is free from the illusion that the matter will donate their ovum or not -– it only needs legal framework.
I think that everyone is clear that the Twitter format can not adequately explain everything and the twitter audience is not accustomed to these kinds of explanations how the liberal media works exactly. In this particular case, the difference has been informed choice or uninformed choice.
This must be understood that women in legal consciousness and awareness are very significantly different. The liberal version of it has been the notion that a woman has won equal rights with men, and if a man can donate sperm, the woman can donate eggs and there is no reason to view these issues separately, it just offends women and unfashionably, and it is a way of thinking of company with low legal consciousness.
A truly well-informed society knows a woman and understands that, in these processes, both sexes differ quite substantially and women are not in conflict with the laws of nature and does not lead to protest and the desire to challenge them. She understood very well that she as a woman donating eggs is at some risk and makes an informed choice.
Exactly how the liberal media despised the laws of nature and cursed opponents I will not mention yet, maybe later in this article. The important thing is that there another trend is visible - to attack the laws of nature, the natural sciences, if you look at other examples, liberals generally do not like any constant, stable system with its laws,. It can be quite easy to imagine that the judge in the courtroom, in which an expert will tell something about Newton's laws which are based on an event, gest an answer, that here no such laws work, here we look legally at everything. One can also understand why - stable, specific, systematic thinking system and laws that can not be interpreted as you wish, actually interfere with lies.
For people who usually read a lot of shorter texts, the question arises - why such a long introduction, such long explanations and where is the story about Trump and twitter. Twitter attack reports are short, emotional, and all sorts of liberal media try to make Trump justified or explain their attitude towards all sorts of nonsense. Smarter discussions are few and these long explanations outlines the basic principles of exactly how the liberal media lie, manipulate and do not tell the whole truth. Put it down to concealing 1% of information, then reverse it and the effect is achieved!
Is there a theoretical possibility that,, as president, Trump could politically beat Obama.? What if the politically correct and nice liberals would make such a mistake? How to discover all errors in a politically-correct society? Of course, that Trump will not be able to do so in defense of heterosexual white men, or “rednecks” (as liberals label the people who voted for him.) He has defended Hispanics, Afro-americans and gays.
Obama’s sucess story.
Trump needs his own asbestos removal project. In these addresses a very positive example of Barack Obama is described. An Afro-american saves afro-americans from asbestos dust. A lot of positivism, a good start to the new Obama era.
Trump has defended Hispanics, Aafro-americans and gays.
"One in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and half of them do not know it, young men, and especially young black men, are least likely to know if they are infected with HIV, we can't allow HIV to continue its devastating toll among young black men."
Researchers studied 8,153 men in 21 U.S. cities, taking part in the 2008 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, they found that 19 percent of gay men are infected with HIV.
The study found that 28 percent of gay black men were infected with HIV, compared with 18 percent of Hispanic men and 16 percent of white men.
Black men in the study were also least likely to be aware of their infection, with 59 percent unaware of their infection compared with 46 percent of Hispanic men and 26 percent of white men.
The severity of the impact of HIV in the gay community is nothing new. What has been missing is an appropriate response by our government, at the federal, state and local levels, and the gay community itself," he said in a statement."
If you compare the numbers that describe something other than HIV-infected white men, Hispanics and Afro-americans, you can quite freely to dispose of them. This figure is higher, it will be less, here the percentage points to this trend, while these figures - a different trend. Otherwise, everything happens when you compare the numbers that describe something so politically-correct as a large pool of data for whites, Hispanics and Afro-americans infectied with the HIV virus.
Which is a real problem - this - reuters.co m/article/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923
or this - msn.co m/en-us/news/politics/trump-administration-rolls-back-protections-for-transgender-students/ar-AAnezrE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
This, of course, is only the possibility of a fictional story that would be if there were, but there the media and politicians of political correctness due to the fact that they have not been able to communicate with the community and achieve their results as a direct result of political correctness. Politically incorrect dara and politically incorrect discussion needed.
Imagine how their politically-correct media may portray a politician who invented a special state-funded program for Afro-american young people so that they can think about health and be more responsible. Liberals match the level of thinking of the consumer in mind and ignore inconvenient facts.
Let's think about, what are the operating principles of the liberal media and liberal politicians’ arsenal - before writing that they are specific distortions of the truth.
Though, formally liberally- affected people are informed, in fact they haves not received all the information and an essential part of the truth, therefore, they can not detect.
It can be quite easy to make such mistakes, deception and the basis for all this is that the consumer does not want to think very much and to limits themselves and to what they want to hear, but some sort of positive changes require them to listen to different information. Some times they can say that is the fault of others.
Some times they can tell that the fault is in other, highly competitive party politics, that the same society and the individual do not have any obligation and responsibility and have a cycle of blaming others that repeats every election, but a real discussion between the authorities and the people does not take place in blaming, lying and swearing. Stopping the cycle and starting a genuine consultation with the same gay community - what can be done in every country by the community and by each individual, the president can give fresh start to public discussion new beginning, where the name of liberal bonding and lying will not interfere.
In fact, no matter what exactly is the state power partner for real debate and genuine account of like-minded individuals, not the fools who flatter and deceive. Important that the essential component of individual cooperation - be it the potential heart disease patient who is overweight, the stout Afro-american boy or the unemployed, who are taught the profession again. Hearing, responsibility and cooperation. Not blaming or liberal stories!
In the information war, the liberal media use the average consumer misconceptions and ignorance.
The overall global pattern for the ugly tower example, a woman who the specific medical challenge for females would be regarded as a legal achievements in the fight for women's rights and homosexual blacks’ sexually risky behavior, denial of facts and statistics and Reuters researchers treating them as homophobic racists is the conclusion that here the average consumer inherent thinking limitations have stimulated an aggressive liberal politically-correct propaganda, misrepresentation or concealment and denial that distorts the perception of reality.
These are models that might just as well be harmful to other people's lives where improvements are possible, if taken together, both the man himself and the public. Medical care is linked to this - not to use alcohol, smoke, eat too much, take drugs, start to do sport or exercise more, or more easily learn to regulate conflicts, this, improves job security. For an unemployed person it is just as important to learn and acquire new skills, where it can help the country.
It could be at real conversation with people, not politically- correct shouting that whoever says that the percentage of gay men who most often become infected with HIV is a racist homophobe. The one who says that the unemployed will have to learn, and the state will help them also can receive criticism from politically- correct sources.
So, in theory, a Republican politician should realize that for any problem that requires the participation of the people themselves and the public consultation is traumatized or politically correct. They should , start to extensively discuss and solve, showing what damage has been done by politically- correct media and the instincts which they play.
For me, a little tired of social topics, let's talk about what is important for such a large country as the United States - on energy. Large consumption of oil, natural gas and other resources, extraction of resources and a lot of economic, scientific innovation and environmental challenge.
I suppose, ecology will no be the Trumps choice for political points.
It is a challenge - to be better than The Clinton Foundation with the world environmental and energy initiatives valid and understandable to the world . The demand for energy is high. Demand for environmental problem-solving is also high.
One of the features that are combined with sales restrictions of national measures against transport ships that run on fuel containing sulfur and policy support ships that run on natural gas.
Another way to change the world is to support a wide methane hydrate extraction. "Methane hydrate is a global energy "game changer," oil and gas researchers are working to develop new technologies to produce natural gas from methane hydrate deposits. This research is important because methane hydrate deposits are believed to be a larger hydrocarbon resource than all of the world's oil, natural gas and coal resources combined."
A big country with its scientific and business resources can be explored and, if possible, with these resources significantly change the amount of energy used and environmental impact on the world.
How much support to give to energy, storage or saving technology - it is up to every state and each region's requirements for electricity, transport fuels and energy for heating, it varies significantly. However, the potential is great and can be found in a number of ways to significantly improve both energy generation and savings and reduced environmental impact. Which would be enough to be widely introduced in progress to be able to say that the policy has been successful.
britannica.co m/science/hydrocarbon Note on methane - CH4 - natural gas. Less carbon, less CO2, less greenhouse effect. You need to know how many of today's technologies need energy to get the methane hydrates.
Will be continued!
Notes for this article.
Liberals - omniscience, arrogance, elitism and manipulation,
There would be little to remember what we mean by concepts establishmentism. What was wrong done by liberals and those friendly media. Or maybe the previous policy and its achievements in public policy, economics and public administration sector was not so smart, good and understandable.
when they face truth-liberals was wrong