One writing about political commercials

One writing about political commercials

Donald Trump is one of the best examples, why we should interest more in politics. That man is a colorful personality, who has used media very effectively to get people voting himself. And I think that the clear way to speak has made this man very popular. But is that man, what people like, or what they want to see in the White House?

But we must realize that those Donland Trumps are mostly harmless. They are very colorful, but the thing is that this kind of person might be dangerous. If we think the case that every commercial TV-or net-TV-site would be owned by one person, and then those channels would open public for the time of election campaign and the people are allowing to see good movies in those channels. But inside those movies would be the commercials of a certain candidate. That kind of thing offers very good benefits for the people, who are supported by owners of the channel.

Twitter has prohibited the political commercials in their channel, and now we must ask, what is the difference between political marketing and advisement? This is the thing, what we should ask before we are prohibiting anything? When we are thinking about the form of political and other marketing, we are always forgetting that political marketing might be camouflaged as the discussion, and in there the persons might send links or something like that, what are linking the homepages, where might be made for supporting some politicians.

Or they might be some kind of meme-pages, what might look like humorous, but where are the links to the political pages, or what is full of political propaganda. I know, that I use word propaganda, and it has negative content, but in my opinion, every kind of political commercial is propaganda.

Propaganda or psychological operations are styles, where people are telling their opinions about things, and many times we have forgotten that when we are making political commercials, we are making commercials for the political party. This thing is one of the most remarkable ideas in the world. The problem with internet marketing is that everybody would get the same audience, and by using minimum budgets would the commercial get very many lookers.

But the problem is that politics is ever been in fashion because it's not interesting "normal people". But are we interesting things, what are decided by politicians? Political leaders are ruling nations, and they make decisions about things, what would be done in the next election season. And that's why this kind of thing should interest people.

We are living in a democracy, or shaper saying we are living in a republic. That means that we are electing people in the parliament, who are making decisions. And the reason for that is the people, who are sitting in parliament have the chance to read the information, what is needed to make good decisions.

And then we must realize the thing that we should describe the word "good". Is the decision good only for politician self, and the support team for a political party, what this person represents. Or is is it good for the majority of the country? That is enough, but what the same decision makes for the minority? When on opposite sides are economy, humanity, and defense we are facing big ideologies. And that kind of thing is really good to think when we will I hope to go next time to go to give our votes.

The way how to create successful political movement or party

The way how to create successful political movement or party

What kind of political parties are successful in politics? The idea is that no group would ban from the voter's list, and also the party must get cooperatives also in parliament. This kind of things requires, that the name of the party doesn't give a negative image to some group of people immediately when they are seeing the name of the party.

The name of the party is very important. When some party would want to get success, it should find a balance between financial funding and the way to get votes. There is only a small group of really rich people on the Earth.  The regular people would give votes, and that's why there must not support the great financial power too much. But if the party would be profiled as the communist party, there would be hard to find funding.

And that's why the name of the party must be neutral, like the Social Democratic Party, or the Christian Liberal Party. They are not telling much about the party and its agenda, and that would make easy to change politics.  

But in the last case, the name of the party would give a negative image in the eyes of immigrants, who also give votes. The problem with choosing the agenda is, that there should find also cooperatives in the parliament if that party wants to get other parties with it in the cabinet.

If the political statements or name of the party are too radical or too tough, there would be difficulties to find the cooperatives inside the parliament, or the party can, of course, get a simple majority in that place. But that would be quite difficult in western democracies.

The thing is that the majority gives most of the votes in the election. This is what makes the creation of the political agenda very difficult, is that the people should look like an adult and avoid too radical statements. But at the same time, the political movement must wake interest in its agenda and ideology. This kind of things requires colorful people, who are speaking  "as the regular person would understand".

The cloning of political character

The cloning of political character

Political characters are like popstars. They are both addicted to popularity, which makes people buy them like some product. If the person would not please the electors, they don't sell records or political agenda.

And this is why the image is a very important tool for the politicians as well as the popstars. The supporters of the campaigns are following what kind of people would be elected to the top position, and then they would drive those characters to the campaigns in other areas.

The best result for the politician would give a satisfying political set and nice image, which will make the politician as well as the interesting and pleasing person, whose agenda is also easy to sell for people. A modern politician must realize, that the social media would be an effective tool as well as creating an image and destroying it.

Only one wrong photograph would cause the end of the career, and those things are things like hunting safari, lying about some heroic actions and films, where the person would speak derogatorily of electors or some national proud. And those things could cost a career. The thing is that the politician must understand that the decisions are making regular people, and if the voting percentage is very low, would that tell that politics is not interesting. 

But it tells that there are so many similarities in the political programs, that people would think that it's same, who would go to parliament. Cloning the political programs are the thing, which will cause that people will lose their interest with political leaders because politicians make decisions about how the resources of the nation are used.  And this is the legal role of the parliament and other political systems.

Brexit with or without an agreement, that is the message of the Boris Johnson the political Ed Sheeran

Brexit with or without an agreement, that is the message of the Boris Johnson the political Ed Sheeran

Do you notice the similarity between images of pop-star Ed Sheeran and the political star Boris Johnson, who is now the prime minister of Great Britain? Boris Johnson is now the prime minister in Great Britain, and he says that Britain would leave the EU with or without agreement. And Johnson has been said, that Great Britain would not pay the severance pay. But who cares about those things anyway, would the EU declare war to Great Britain, if that money would not be paid. What is the real choice in that situation?

The thing is that the Brexit is the storm in some glass of water, what locates in some cabinets, and if that thing has something to do with regular people is, that they will lose 12 000 workplaces. That thing does mean anything when people are hearing when Britain is great again. But do you know, what makes Boris Johnson a very effective politician?

The answer is simple Boris Johnson is different than others. The image with unkempt hair would be similar to Ed Sheeran, and because Johnson seems different the reporters would come to his and ask things. And the media writings where that man claimed to be some kind of "motormouth" makes him more interesting. Of course, tough speeches are also giving trust in the eyes of electors, and the terms what that man uses are very easy to understand.

But who cares about those things. Boris Johnson is a very popular person in Britain because that kind of people is normally very successful politicians. Boris Johnson is like the political version of Ed Sheeran, the man who would talk things, what regular people wants to hear. And that makes those persons very easy to understand. They will drive their political agenda very effectively, and that makes them easy to hear.

How freedom of speech supports democracy?

How freedom of speech supports democracy?

Freedom of speech and the lack of censorship is supporting democracy, because of those things denies the opportunity, that candidate could hide behind the censorship. If there would be censorship in some nation, the candidate, who has nothing to say would claim that censorship has been removed the things, what that person has been written or spoken in the media.

In real life, there are many people, who want to go to parliament for making decisions, but they actually want only the job, where they can get a good salary. The freedom of speech has given us the opportunity to see the entire agenda, what some person has when that inmate attends to get the seat as the parliamentarian. And those things are telling people, would they want to give their votes to some candidate.

There are many people in history, who have been criticized the leaders of the nation by using very strong arguments, but when they have got the power in the nation, the permissions have been forgotten. That person has started to build the personal cult around self, and then leave to keep the power in the hand because people don't need free elections. In that case, a person just thinks, that only real leader for the nation is that inmate self. And the thing, what is those persons argument for the authoritarian rule is that the nation needs strong leadership.

 Every discussion with the opposition is a weakness, and every demonstration would be crushed by law enforcement because any argument against the leader is not tolerated. The agenda of those national leaders is that the only thing, what is right is their way to think and act. And the nation must be strong. That strength and respect for those nations are guaranteed by the heavy-duty military organization and strong firepower. The fear is their weapon.

If somebody even dares to speak against those people, they are facing the nuclear threat, and the best way to act, of course, is to sit on a chair and keep the mouth shut. This would make sure, that there would not be troubles with the opinions. If a person keeps the mouth shut,  there would be very nice to see things, what is supporting the point of view of some group. And that guarantees that some discussion forums and other organizations like church are leaving in the hand of the fanatics and radicals. There is not allowed to say anything, what doesn't support the opinions of the leaders of those groups. And that kind of things is driving groups to the road of radicalism and hate.