Donald Trump Rhetorical Analysis

To draw a modern-day analogy, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas used a procedural filibuster as a mechanism to shut down the federal government in opposition to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. While some argue his political intentions were admirable, his self-interested nature drove his use of underhanded political tactics to achieve his ultimate end. In turn, his actions proved destructive for the public good—costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Supporters of Senator Cruz argue that he chose the right course of action. “The loyalties of every Senator are distributed among his party, his state and section, his country and his conscience.” The competing pressures of party interests, public interests, and personal moral responsibility to vote in the interests of his conscience forces the Senator to compartmentalize himself. As a result, Senator Cruz acted upon his ideal of statesmanship by pursuing private interest instead of adhering to party loyalty.

Texas senator, Ted Cruz, won Iowa’s caucus vote for the Republican’s presidential race. Ted Cruz is in strong opposition in what Obama has done and has rallied voters who agree with him. His campaign promises to defend against terrorism and repeal Obama’s healthcare program. Many other candidates found it difficult to get a caucus vote and have decided to drop out of the presidential race. Former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, dropped out of the race. Many of the other governors barely got support according to the recent Iowa

The most recent presidential election has been one of the most dividing in the history of America. While President Trump won the electoral vote, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, creating a divide in workplaces, schools, and many other public places. The greatest challenges that the President will need to address first are the unity of Americans for the acceptance of all people and the education of young people, as they are the future of our nation.

This essay is about how connotation, rhetoric, bias effect an article. The article that I chose for this essay is the LA Times article, “Trump and FDR: Meet the new fears, same as the old fears,” by Ali Swenson. The articles two main points are that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Donald Trump appeal to what people want to do about current issues; and that eople are going against Muslims now the same way that people went against the Japanese in WWII.

There are even more people engrossed in Trump's campaign as his contentious rhetoric is spreading and becoming exponentially obscene. His words foreshadow what he'd do if he were president. My teachers have said that they "don't care" if Trump becomes president because "he wouldn't have any power, thanks to Congress." Obviously, that's false, and as we all have seen, his divisive words have been significantly detrimental to unification in this country - and he's not even in charge. I can imagine how he'd undermine the liberties granted by this country from the start. As he gains more advocates for becoming President of the U.S.A, I'm sure everyone else will be even more surprised by what he has to say because he'll have more leeway for his

“We’ve had enough Bushes,” his mother, Barbara Bush, observed prophetically before her son announced his candidacy last summer.

The logical fallacy detected in the political reading is deceptiveness because George W. Bush isn't telling the whole truth of what's going on in Iraq. He seems to be making light of the situation going on in Iraq, especially considering around the 2003 era which the Saddam Hussein regime and the U.S. invasion for oil, it's very chaotic. Misleading arguments are also seen because Bush is blaming the Iraqi people entirely for tensions, despite the U.S. invasion for oil, a personal gain. Appealing to pity because Bush is asking all American people to take pity but shaming Iraqis, not allowing Americans to take responsibility. For the Nader passage, delusion because of everything that's happening with technology, we have everything at our fingertips

With the impending election looming closer and closer, the approach of the presidential throne seems to elicit a plethora of opinions on who is the most viable candidate. However, the candidate that has caused controversy at every angle possible is none other than Donald Trump. Famous for his extreme affluence and most notably his TV drama, The Apprentice, President-elect Donald Trump has integrated his unctuous persona into his campaign. The San Diego Union Tribune’s article on Donald Trump, “…Great Power and Greater Irresponsibility”, introduces us with the possibility that Donald Trump is not the “Make America Great American” man he claims to be, and in fact he is the exact opposite. While for some Americans, his aversion to political correctness is admirable and induces a strong support; many are adverse to his social conduct and view his idiosyncrasies polar to the fabric of the Constitution. The article brings forth a target audience of both non-supporters and supporters alike in grave attempt to eradicate this supposed allure of Trump.

This political cartoon about Trump uses many rhetorical devices to relay a message to anyone who would so care to look at this particular ad about him having allegedly stolen Putin’s shirt.  I believe that the author of this political cartoon was trying to persuade to believe Trump is a bad candidate for the presidency by showing us he has ties with the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.  Do to this persuasion; the effectiveness of this passage is greatly achieved using logos and pathos because it explains how terrible it is to let the leader of the free world have a great relationship with the country that cannot stand us, Russia.

Every four years’ citizens above the age of 18 get a chance to be a part of one of the single most important rights of being an American. And this right must be determined by two standing candidates in this year’s presidential election. These two candidates have had their up’s and down’s but no matter what we think as an American voter we must choose at least one. To understand each candidate there must be a critique of their trustworthiness, logic, and emotional appeals.

Donald Trump, a once controversial political candidate, gave his 2017 Inaugural address on January 20th, 2017 when he was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States. Through appeals such as syntax and diction, religion and patriotism, and logic, Donald Trump was able to generate a unifying speech toward his audience. Amidst the growing violence and repercussions of the 2016 election, Donald Trump, in his 2017 Inaugural address, sends the message that he will put America and its citizens first to unite the country and change America for the better.

The late author and Ambassador Clare Boothe Luce claimed that every presidency can be reduced to a single sentence with an active verb, e.g., “Lincoln freed the slaves,” or “Nixon resigned.” What one active verb will best summarize the Obama Presidency? President Obama burst onto the national stage with a keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Just four years later, the frequent use of “Hope,” “Change,” and “Yes We Can” became rhetorical trademarks of his successful presidential campaign. The “bully pulpit” has served as a prominent feature of Obama’s presidency, and five points reveal the significance of rhetoric in assessing his presidential legacy.

Donald Trump recently gave a speech discussing rising Radical Islamic Terrorism, immigration from the Middle East, and a need for a rise in national security while Manchester, New Hampshire on June 13th 2016. He centers his whole speech around discussing how bad a President his opponent, Hillary Clinton, would be in difficult times. Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Finance in 1968 with a bachelor 's degree in economics, and has become a very successful businessman. He’s the Republican nominee for this upcoming presidential election, and is a very controversial candidate and person. He has come under fire for many of his views that he discusses in his June 13th speech. While Trump does make some agreeably points, he renders his speech ineffective because of his heavy reliance on Clinton’s opinion to form his own. If Trump were to become President, his stance on important issues would need to be reached with careful consideration, and not just based on doing the opposite of his opponents.

Trump’s political case, is in many ways, very similar to that of the Pro-Brexit campaign- they both focus on many issues such as aiding those left behind or affected by globalization, the importance of national unity, and most importantly, the issue of immigration. The key factor in both the rise of Trump and the support behind Brexit is immigration. Both campaigns asserted their stance against immigration and that affirmed that part of their principal focus and goal is to control it. The success of both sides is a result of their rhetoric that appealed to the anti-immigration sentiment of white voters. In regards to the motifs surrounding the immigration debate, I believe that racism is a part of the equation but ultimately, I argue that

Sunday October 9th, the second Presidential debate aired generating approximately 66.5 million viewers to watch the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debate the issues. Moderated by Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper the debate was a town hall style with questions coming from undecided voters, as well as facebook and the moderators. The television programs following the debate tend to spin the debate in favor of their candiate. I tuned in to Hannity on Fox News on Monday following the debate. I watched the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC also on Monsay. Lastly, I watched the sunday news program Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.