This Professor's Viral Tweets Explain Trump's Social Media Use

In the opinion of many, Donald Trump was able to win the election because of a carefully targeted social media campaign that focused on building a database of users and attacking those with ads and media, rather than focusing on pre-existing demographics.

By constantly vilifying Hillary Clinton, Trump managed to not only get people who liked and supported him to be mobilized to vote, but get a lot of voters who were on the fence to believe that anything would be better than voting for Hillary. To this day, I have family members who admit that they think Trump is an absolute moron and is unfit to be President, but that their hands were tied because Hillary was so evil they couldn’t vote for her.

As President, Trump hasn’t been able to do much aside from make headlines for erroneous, offensive, and borderline insane claims. When he does apologize for saying something wrong, he tends to sidestep the blame and place it on other sources, like the time he wrongly claimed an attack in Sweden was spearheaded by a Muslim immigrant. It wasn’t. So he said he wasn’t at fault because he saw it on Fox News.

Although Trump’s use of his Twitter account might seem like the ramblings of a mad uncle who trolls YouTube comments and parrots Alex Jones conspiracy theories, it turns out there may be a pretty brilliant strategy behind  his postings.

University of Berkeley Professor, George Lakoff, laid out Trump’s social media strategy after scrutinizing the President’s reactionary post patterns. Donald’s tweets, according to Lakoff, fall into one of four categories.

He provided examples of each and explains them in-depth.

According to this professor, almost all of the tactics employed by Trump are heavily rooted in deceit, lies, side-stepping issues or blaming them on others.

The first tactic, “pre-emptive framing” allows Trump to frame an argument that isn’t really rooted in fact or ends up making a mountain out of a mole-hill. An example of this would be Hillary Clinton’s housing of White House emails on a private server. Notice how Trump’s outrage at this practice stops at Clinton, as him and his administration are doing the same thing

Trump is able to get his message across after making such a bold claim because sites help disseminate his brazen idiocy. His supporters will inevitably come to Trump’s aid and vehemently attack anyone who attacks him fomenting an even greater hullabaloo over what he said. This theory suggests that Trump doesn’t care at the end of the day because, as the old saying goes: there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

Unfortunately, the media turned him into the popularity monster, love him or hate him, that he eventually became.

Because we’re constantly talking about him, we’re legitimizing him as a figure. Doesn’t matter if we think he’s a joke, we’re still talking about him, usually more than anything or anyone else outside of our immediate relationships with family and friends.

Pointing out Trump’s flaws and lies are seen as attacks by his loyal fan base and in a way, justifies the false, pre-emptive narrative that there’s a “crusade” against him. “Mainstream Media” and “Fake News” can bring up all the valid, backed-up sources and evidence that they want, oftentimes bringing up Trump’s old quotes and footage to show his hypocrisy, but much of his fanbase ultimately sees these as “attacks” and give them more reason to back the president.

Lakoff points out that reacting to Trump in this way and taking the low-hanging fruit isn’t an effective means of discrediting him. By “stooping” down to his level, we’re legitimizing his medium of communication and are thus legitimizing him.

Instead, Lakoff thinks that Trump’s bold claims should be met with this appropriate response:

Instead, if us, as the media, focused on things that actually matter, like how our government is tearing apart at the seams and not this drama fomented by a blowhard, we’d be able to lay the groundwork for some meaningful change.

So Lakoff proposed a simple three step plan for journalists and news commentators to follow:

Simply don’t share what he writes, and you’ll immediately help to focus on what is actually important.

Or we could laugh at him because he has small hands and tweets nonsensical words like “covfefe.” What do you think?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

home – Channel RSS

Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough Explain The Truth Behind Their Mar-A-Lago Visit

After Donald Trump launched a Twitter attack on Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC hosts set the record straight.

“Mr. Trump claims that we asked to join him at Mar-a-Lago three nights in a row. That is false. He also claimed that he refused to see us. That is laughable,” the Morning Joe hosts told the Washington Post.

The op-ed piece delved into the president’s “unhealthy obsession” with Morning Joe after claiming he doesn’t watch the program.

Trump wrote a vitriolic two-part tweet attacking the engaged pair.

The hosts wrote that Trump invited them both to dinner on December 30, but Scarborough showed up without Brzezinski, who did not want to go.

The day after the dinner, Joe was asked by a disappointed Trump if Mika could also visit Mar-a-Lago that night. “She reluctantly agreed to go. After we arrived, the president-elect pulled us into his family’s living  quarters with his wife, Melania, where we had a pleasant conversation. We politely declined his repeated invitations to attend a New Year’s Eve party, and we were back in our car within 15 minutes,” they explained to the WA Post.

“If she had, it would be evident to anyone watching Morning Joe on their high-definition TV. She did have a little skin under her chin tweaked, but this was hardly a state secret.”

They went on to discuss Trump’s misogyny and how they appreciated some Republican lawmakers calling out Trump’s verbal assault on women.

“It would be the height of hypocrisy to claim the mantle of women’s empowerment while allowing a family member to continue such abusive conduct.”

The pair was threatened to have a negative National Enquirer report on them unless they retracted their brutal coverage of the president.

“We ignored their desperate pleas,” they said.

Following Friday morning’s Morning Joe, Trump tweeted:

Scarborough fired right back:

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

home – Channel RSS

19 Lawyers Discuss The Dumbest Things They've Had To Explain To Clients

Being a lawyer is a really, really tough job. It requires tons of school and unlike the medical field, you’re not really guaranteed a job once you graduate because there’s no cap on the number of people who can become JD’s in a given year. Medical schools are much more restrictive on the number of applicants they take in, so to be a successful lawyer you usually have to be really good.

So explaining the law to someone of average intelligence can be difficult, because you know the ins and outs of the American legal system because it’s your job. Interpreting the law for an everyday slob is a difficult task.

But explaining it to a moron is a hair-ripping nightmare.

Something these lawyers openly talked about in a recent Reddit post where they were asked about the dumbest things they needed to explain to their clients.

1. PHONE CALLS WILL BE RECORDED

When I was a legal intern at a criminal defender’s law office, we had a client who was charged with murder. We explained to the client not to make any phone calls saying anything incriminating because it will be recorded. Where prisoners can use the phone there is a GIANT SIGN that says “PHONE CALLS WILL BE RECORDED”. On top of that, before you are able to call our there is an automated recording that tells you that all calls are being recorded and monitored (unless it is to your attorney, which are covered by privilege). Client made a call to his girlfriend that evening asking her to hide the gun.

sidekick_sofi

2. “But…it’s FLORIDA.”

I had to explain to a client why their ex-husband could travel with their child to Florida without obtaining a passport. As in, I had to tell them that Florida was part of the United States.

lawyererjb

3. Lawyers make money?

That they had to pay me. This is more common than you’d think. For some reason, some people think lawyers are like their personal spiritual guides or fairy godmother.

dlawoff

4. So, how do we get out of this one?

That you really can go to jail if we lose at trial.

vigo810

5. I read it somewhere.

Not to a client, but other party. I was acting for a particular manufacturer. They were sued for an injury incurred by someone using a product made by a different manufacturer. I rang their lawyer and said I was acting for A and I didn’t understand why A had been named as defendant in the suit but the body of the claim said the plaintiff had been injured by a product made by B. I asked if it was a monster typo or what?

The response was that they thought A was the manufacturer of products sold under the name B. Now that isn’t inherently stupid, I guess. So I said that had no basis in fact whatsoever, and that A and B were unrelated competitors, and asked (as a matter of curiosity) how they had reached the conclusion that A were the manufacturer of B.

The response was along the lines of “someone in the office, I think it was maybe Jim one of our clerks, who thought he’d read somewhere that B were made by A”. That was it. No checking of the product paperwork. No company searches. No brand name register searches. No enquiries with our client or B. Not even an effin’ google. Just some guy in the office had once heard.

And on that basis they issued a very financially sizeable product liability suit.

princhester

6. Then what is entrapment, Mr. LAW GUY?!

That your boss sending you to a drug test after he walked in on you snorting cocaine off your desk does not qualify as entrapment. You can not sue him.

fritts336

7. But they sent an email!

That he hadn’t really won a 20 million euro European super lottery from Australia that he’d never entered and that it was a good thing that his family, bank and church wouldn’t lend him the $ 2000 they said they needed to verify his identity (on top of the several hundred he’d already sent them) and that yes, his priest was right it was a scam.

This was during a clinic at a free community legal center. The poor guy had limited English and only $ 20 left in his bank account and he really did not want to let go of the 20 million euro dream. His priest had sent him to us for advice because he wasn’t having any luck talking sense into the old guy himself and thought lawyers might help.

adingostolemytoast

8. But I do stuff like that when I’m sober all the time.

It doesn’t matter if you were sober or not. You jumped out of a third story window with a beer bottle and threw it at a cop. The jury is going to think you were drunk. Also, I think you were drunk.

quackattackaggie

9. …But why though?

I had a client once who was in trouble for stealing sample medications from a hospital. We got security footage from the DA as part of the evidence and when it came down we watched it together. The camera was literally 10 ft away in a well lit room and we watched her shovel prescription samples into a garbage bag and walk off. After it was done she turned to me and asked if I thought she was going to be able to get off… I said no.

thesilentkellar

10. When you gotta go…

Don’t signal to the judge you need to use the restroom during your trial by making eye contact and vigorously nodding while urgently pointing at your crotch.

cyanidenow

11. Who’s the real victim here?

In my state we have this thing called Victim’s Compensation.

An oversimplification of how it works goes as follows: If you are the victim of a crime, and suffer some form of injury (e.g. psychological, physical, etc.) you can apply for a payment from state funds. If you are the perpetrator of one of those crimes (e.g. an assault, robbery, paedophilia, etc.) an order can be made for you to pay the state back an amount relating to that victim’s compensation.

I had a client who felt the process of being convicted for assaulting his relatives, and having to pay victims compensaation back to the state was arduous… and in return, he should be receiving victim’s compensation from the state.

… so that was fun to explain.

(edit: explanation was “you are not the victim in that…”)

austrayya

12. That’s not how bankruptcy works…

I once had a client who wanted to declare bankruptcy. I explained he needed to have his tax returns for the past few years filed in order to do so. He said he hadn’t filed taxes in 20 years because “It ain’t none of the government’s business how much money I make.”

farawaytadpole

13. Stop telling people all the illegal stuff you did.

Why they should not have called the cops to tell them exactly what they did that violated the restraining order.

slwrthnu

14. Breaking Bad.

From this week: Client: So I dont smoke meth, I think its from unprotected sex Me: So you would like me to explain to the judge its ok, you just bang methheads Client: yeah

lucius_aeternae

15. But you’re my lawyer.

A lawyer can’t out and out lie. You said to them “yeah I burned his fucking house down and pissed on the ashes” he can’t say you were two states away….

That blew some my students heads.

paperconservation101

16. So…we’re all in the clear, right?

I once had to explain to a client that he could, in fact, fire an employee for (1) stealing significant sums of money from the safe, (2) pulling a gun on a co-worker who questioned these activities, and (3) waving said gun in a customer’s face moments later, all of which were on camera.

wrigleyjohnson

17. Oh. My. God.

Represented a client charged with statutory rape who had a large number of…’explanations’ for the various evidence in his case that I had to explain would not be a good idea to testify to or argue to the jury:

  • The KY Jelly you purchased with the kid at WalMart was not for applying to an undiagnosed skin condition on your chest
  • The hundreds of pages of internet chat logs prior to traveling hundreds of miles to meet the kid, consisting of repeated explicit sexual overtures, emotional manipulation, lies about your age and wealth, and specific plans for how you would remove him from his parents home were not “meaningless banter”
  • The fact that you had an active prescription for Viagra does not mean you are “asexual”
  • The semen matching your DNA did not find its way into the rectum of the 13 year old boy because of your medical condition that results in “leakage” and the fact that when you are staying in a hotel room, you do not lift the toilet seat when you urinate, which must have resulted in in the material being deposited on the seat and transferred to the boy when he sat on the seat
  • You were not the victim, taken advantage of by the hypersexual teenager for whom you were you merely trying to provide innocent “emotional support”

I had to explain all of these things (and others) many times. Im not sure he ever actually believed any of them.

cyanidenow

18. Jews don’t celebrate Memorial Day.

When a client called me this past memorial day and I asked why she was calling me on a holiday, she replied that she didn’t think Jews celebrated Memorial day. Never thought that I would have to explain that to anyone.

Edit : to answer some of the questions, yes I am Jewish, no I never told her I was Jewish. I have an answering service which took her call and emailed me the message which was that it was very urgent that she speak with me that day. Given that the courts were closed and her case was a paternity and child support matter, I thought it had to be quite the emergency. It was not. She just wanted to ask whether the suspected father was required to take the DNA test ordered by the court. I then had to explain what paternity meant.

sethschraier

19. Baby oil.

I sat in on a case once where the plaintiff’s lawyer had to explain to her that it wasn’t a slip and fall if she brought the baby oil with her in a squeeze bottle and applied it to the floor herself. The woman then began to act like she didn’t speak or understand English after. It was bizarre.

yermomsasherpa

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Distractify

19 People Explain Why They Prefer Having A Friend With Benefits Over A Relationship

There are varying degrees to any relationship we all hold nowadays. Sometimes, we split the type of relationship we keep with certain folks and get the full experience of interacting with one pleasant person by keeping them in rotation. I do this with different groups of friends, and do everything in my power to make sure that none of them ever meet to keep everything in balance.

Recent years has seen a movement that has existed for ages be named and become more popular. FWBs, or friends with benefits, are exactly what they sound like. They’re people that are cool to hang with and simultaneously get physically intimate with, sans post copulating issues.

Some people are too busy to keep a relationship healthy, or are no longer interested in having one at all after one too many negative experiences, but still have certain primal needs that still need to be addressed. There are plenty of reasons to go this route, but here are 19 of them from people that already chose to stick with the FWB lifestyle, at least for the time being.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Distractify