Charles M. Blow: Rhetorical Analysis

Tannen observes how aggression and quarrelsomeness are often considered the standard in American style discourse, with examples in the press such as the “Mommy Wars” and the “Mammography Wars” (Tannen, para. 3). Our culture is prone to handle intellectual discussion and divergent viewpoints like a championship prize boxing match or major sporting event. The rule is to choose a side or else; those who wish to meditate on both sides are labeled as weak minded, cowardly or without character. Unfortunately, in Stableford’s article, our current president also falls victim to the American predilection for binary thinking, choosing a “side” and unleashing a rash and excessive response in his menacing “NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” tweet against UC Berkeley (Stableford, para.

Which presidential candidate leads the polls? Does belligerent racism personify Trump? Does Hillary have what it takes to deal with her Benghazi baggage? Does Bush have daddy issues? Does Carson pop sleeping pills? Does Sanders have a mind as crazy as his hair? Often, these topics lead to heated debates about who will truly make America great again. The media constantly divulges about “[the] Baggage, the Gaffes and the Billionaires” of the upcoming election (Dickinson and Kelley), and with the 2016 presidential election around the corner, the topic of politics has become a bullet nearly impossible to dodge. Maureen Dowd a disputatious Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times cajoles and educates her audience through the use of emotional appeals, a polemic writing style to argue controversial topics, as well as a dauntless and sardonic tone appealing to the audience, in order to convince the readers of her tenacious viewpoints against political leaders while also captivating and further informing the public about the political parties.

Donald Trump is portrayed as a lying, evil individual in the media. Although we may not know the complete and total truth, we are able to identify that he is lying about something. For example, one of the very first things Trump had said to gather the attention of the audience would be about getting rid of all illegal immigrants. Rapidly, people began turning their heads and opening their ears when they finally understood what he was trying to do. “The consistency and emotional appeal

Gail Collins, an American writer known for writing under the opinion pages for the The New York Times, has turned the recent presidential debate, into something comical. In Gail’s most recent articles, “How Could Anyone Vote for Trump”, “The Dark Days of Donald Trump”, “Don’t Take Donald Trump to Dinner”, and “The Debate in One Scary Answer”, her purpose is to show that Donald Trump is not qualified to become the next president of the United States. In these four articles, her audience is the general educated reader that will be voting in the 2016 presidential election. Gail Collins has a recurring pattern of using the rhetorical modes; illustration and description. In addition, she uses the rhetorical strategies; metaphor, dialogue, and contrast

Technology these days is continuing to grow into people’s lives exponentially- something that Jenna Wortham talks about in the article, "I Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App" published in The New York Times. She offers a new point of view to the dating-app world as she describes life in a relationship separated by thousands of miles. Today, dating-apps are mainly for people who are looking for a partner, but as more and more people start to find their loved one online, those apps become irrelevant. This knowledge has sparked new concepts for apps- apps that try to keep people happy in their relationships. Although human social interactions may have transformed over the past couple of decades, the usage of mobile devices to communicate help us stay in contact with people

For the entirety of the article, Stephens utilizes a very relaxed language, often creating his very own names, like “Trumpkin”. Furthermore he uses acronyms and informal language to create a conversational connection with the reader.This choice provides a sense of intimacy and allows for the speech to really be remembered as not a lot of other articles include such relaxed language. However, this piece is a commentary so it is only right that the author’s voice shines through. As for word choice, Stephens employs many words when describing Trump such as, “oblige his man-crush” and “rocks for jocks .” The word choice almost reflects what Stephens thinks of Trump’s presidency, shallow. Powerful word choice are used several times throughout the article to make his argument

Joe Nocera starts of the article with two telegraphic sentences, and thus creates an impactful statement —for people who agree with him— about the inept of Donald Trump, insofar as one considers Trump’s actions an amalgamation of ignorance and asininity; “Oh boy” leads to a purge of the readers —people who agree will continue reading, leading hecklers to disregard the article, labeling it “liberal propaganda.” Repetition surfaces in his third paragraph with the utilization of “then, as, now,” trivializing Trump’s conduct; Trump’s trivialization blossoms an ignominious image ingraining itself in one’s heart. Empathy, becoming ethos, emerges as an omnipotent force, weakness fuels it, willingness crafts it, in the reader from their similar view

What’s the most common reason people voice for supporting Donald Trump? Most would respond with, “He tells it like it is.” But does he? What I would like to do in this chapter is unpack the meaning of that statement. It is true, no doubt, that Donald’s mouth filter is broken. Fact is, it was either never installed or, it was removed a long time ago. The political Left has been pushing more and more stringent mouth filters on the American public for some time now. Many in America are getting sick and tired of it. The whole society has come to the place where we are all just walking (talking) on eggshells. “Careful, you might offend someone. That’s not P.C.”, the world says. The result of all this nonsense has not served to produce more respectful

In an article published by U.S. News & World Report entitled “Give Him the Benefit of the Doubt” (20 January, 2017), Michael C. Barnes encourages Americans to be deferential and hopeful with the approaching presidency of Donald Trump, arguing that his opponents should “protest the new president's actions if necessary, but [not] his presidency.” Barnes advocates this behavior by condemning those who are “[reinforcing] gridlock and [impeding] progress on important issues” through their boycotting and degrading of Trump’s inauguration; by demonstrating Trump’s commitment to serve the public, as well as gain its approval, even if it is through unconventional means, such as tweeting; and by reiterating that Trump has “unique talents” and “deal-making

On Monday, January 25, 2016, CNN interviews Glenn Beck on the issue of Donald Trump being referred as ‘a very dangerous man’ in Beck’s eyes. After several comments from Trump simply stating his confidence in his current election for executive power, more people are becoming concerned with the question on the seriousness of his ‘humor’. Beck quotes Trump, “I could go on to Fifth Avenue and shoot people and I wouldn’t lose a vote.” After controversy over the temper of the country and being able to change the mood depending on the situation occurring, Beck states, “The mood of the country is very angry, but you never make a good decision when you are angry. The worst thing we can do is to now start looking at, who is going to get revenge?

Blow provides insufficient evidence to support his belief on Trump's degradation of language. The only valid point Blow brings to the forefront is Trump’s use of Parataxis. Though admittedly the use of Parataxis is a substantial arguement, the remainder of Blow’s argument appears to be fueled by a distaste for the president. To me, Blows argument is merely an encoded list of insults geared toward Trump. Describing his use of language as, “A clumsy, folksy lie delivered by a shyster using broken English” …. And “ what comes from a man who is more watcher than a reader, a man more driven by the limelight than literature”.Blow’s description of Trump is problematic and can be perceived to have a hidden meaning when he expresses Trump use broken

As you may know, Donald Trump is running for the role of the President of the United States. There is a lot of controversy over the subject, no one seems to approve of Trump. There are many articles I could have read over the topic, but I read an editorial written by Ross Douthat of the New York Times. This is a very recent article, being written on the 29th of August, 2015. Douthat’s article is titled, “Donald Trump, Traitor to His Class”, it is about how non-traditional of a republican that Trump is. In this essay, I will give you a brief history of the author and point out any biases or assumptions made by the author. I will prove to you that his argument is based on no fact and only what could be or could have been.

He endorses Republican candidates as men who wish to regain world power and stop the humiliation that is being forced upon America. Lowry uses a simile comparing getting punched in the gut to looking at the embarrassment of the pictures the Iranians released, bringing the column to a full circle. To finish off his criticism of Obama and the article, Lowry dialects Obama to saying thank you to the whole Iranian kidnapping situation, when instead he should look to asserting power. Lowry does an excellent job in assuring that other readers share this view of dissatisfaction with President Obama’s obliviousness to the issues in America. Reading the article makes the audience want a more powerful nation once again by supporting those candidates who wish to win again as a country. Lowry is effective and achieves the goal of making others share a common

" But as the years went on and I continued to write, the specter of Donald Trump began to bleed a lot more heavily into him"(citation)

Mr Trump had only called for a “temporary” ban on Muslim arrivals, they argued, and the media had lied about his plan (actually, the businessman’s proposal has been evolving as he offered clarifications and exceptions). What those more squeamish members of the group said they wanted was better screening to find terrorists, and more honesty about the danger posed by many Muslims. There was loud agreement with a frequent Trump line, that political correctness is killing Americans, by causing people to think twice before reporting suspicious activities by immigrants, foreigners or Muslims. The shootings in San Bernardino had proved Mr Trump right, it was said. A man complained that the attorney-general, Loretta Lynch, had gone out and said she was worried about “angry talk at Muslims.” That’s absurd,” he scoffed. “My biggest concern is my family’s