https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database/hillary-clinton-my-temperament/OS8yNy8xNjpNeSBUZW1wZXJhbWVudA

In a presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton held on September 26, Donald Trump compared his “winning” temperament to the temperament of Hillary Clinton. He talks about how it is his best asset and how Clinton’s temperament is problematic. In retaliation, Hillary Clinton created a political ad that exposes Trump’s bad temperament by showing some of the irrational outbursts that he has made during his speeches.

The reason I chose this political ad is because it does a good job using ethos, pathos, and logos to shed a bad image towards Donald Trump. When the advertisement highlights Trump’s moments of bad temperament, it exemplifies the use of ethos. This is due to the clips’ ability to convince an audience that Trump has bad temperament. This can also be seen as logos since the video uses these clips as evidence to back up what the video is trying to prove. Regarding pathos, these videos might also affect audience’s emotionally and make them think negatively of Trump. These uses of rhetoric were made in order to make Trump look worse as a president and to make Clinton look like a better potential president.

When this ad was created, it was most likely targeting the audience of everyone who is eligible to vote. It does a great job exposing Trump’s wrong doing, which is probably found interesting to most of Americans voting in this presidential debate. The younger audience might find the ad to be humorous while the older audience might see offense in it. The overall goal of making Trump look like a terrible candidate was definitely accomplished, but different types of audiences probably react to it in different ways.

In my opinion, the use of rhetoric in this advertisement is taken a little too far. Most people would agree that this election was more explicit than any other election that has happened so far, and the clips used in this advertisement do a good job of showing it. Donald Trump’s “I can say anything I want and get away with it” attitude is very unsettling to me, and I hope that he tries to filter himself if he ends up becoming president.

Donald Trump is again treading dangerous waters with the recent release of a video that records his conversation with Billy Bush. In this video he is conversing about the benefits of his celebrity status and how his fame lets him violate women sexually. He explains how women would let him kiss them on the lips and sometimes he would touch them sexually in the private area without any reproductions. Essentially he thought he could do whatever he wanted. Although the videos release records Trumps shrewd comments, it cannot actually prove that he ever actually preformed those actions. Since the release of the video though many women have come forth and accused Trump of harassing them. Of course Donald Trump refutes these accusations. His supporters still back him and agree with the notion that it was just “locker room” talk. Being an athlete myself this intrigued me. He claims that behind closed doors in the locker rooms that athletes speak this way. Based on my experiences i can say that it couldnt be more incorrect. I have never spoke nor heard any of these comments while being in a locker room. Of course it would not be accurate to say that there isn’t talk of women occasionally, but they aren’t brought up in a way that is insulting or derogatory. No one ever mentions the things that Trump is recorded explicitly saying. There is a big different between, “that girl is pretty,” and the obscenity of Donald Trumps comments. Athletes have responded to Trumps claims of it being “locker room” talk. Athletes like basketballs LeBron James and footballs Richard Sherman have come out saying and disapproving of the actions Donald Trump thinks goes on in locker rooms. They all agree that this man is insane, and that women should and aren’t talked about in that manner. I do not know how Donald Trump came up with the idea of this “locker room” talk, but one thing is for sure, he is completely inaccurate in his claims.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/donald-trump-locker-room-talk-comments-athlete-reactions

In about three weeks, Election Day will come around where we cast our votes for who we want to be the next POTUS. Considering our current candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, many of us feel inclined to vote the one that is of lesser evil. However, for me, I am heavily considering not voting for either representatives.

I understand that people will bring up arguments such as “All votes count” and “Your vote could make the difference”. However, when you look at both Presidential candidates, it really makes me wonder how they even got that far in the first place. From what I have seen, both candidates only say what they need to in order to cater to a specific group of people, and avoid controversial questions. As they are to be as professional as they can be, they can’t even hold a proper debate without interrupting and insulting one another. In debates, they continually diverge from their questions and change the question, eventually leading to personal attacks during Presidential debates which have no place for them at all.

Donald Trump provides no substance for his arguments. He makes all these claims about how he is going to “Make America Great Again”, yet when he is called out on it, he denies he ever said these things or changes his argument on the subject. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, is just seen as a liar to the American people after her e-mails were leaked to the public. The majority of us who are voting, I believe, are voting for one candidate because they don’t like the other and that they are not as bad as the other. However, many do not consider how their entrance into such a powerful position in the United States may affect them and their lives. What we need voters to do is understand their candidates and their plans during  their presidency, and not vote because they don’t like the other candidate.

Select a piece of campaign rhetoric to share with the class. It could be video or print. In a brief (300-500 word) post to our class blog, provide an analysis of your selection. Here are some questions you may want to consider:
–What made you choose this particular item?
–Is this logos, ethos, or pathos? How do you know?
–How is this rhetoric supposed to work?
–Who is its intended audience?
–What is the significance of the language used in your selection? What relationship do you see between the language used and the reality of what is being described?
–How effective do you think this piece of rhetoric is? Why?
–Describe your own personal reaction to this piece of rhetoric.

If you are interested in looking at television commercials aired as part of the campaign, you might find this site useful.  https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database

Your work must be posted to our course blog by noon on Wednesday, October 26th.

In this TED Talk, Michael Sandel says that we are making it harder to get anything productive out of the democratic process when we leave our  moral convictions at the door. He starts the talk by asking a question. If everyone in the crowd is given a flute, who should get the best flutes? Someone in the audience had said the best flutes should be given to the best flute players because it would be better for everyone as a whole. Aristotle would’ve argued that the best flutes should be given to the best flute players because flutes were made to recognize those who have the best flute playing ability.

To make his point even clearer, he brings up a supreme court case between the PGA (Professional Golf Association) and a disabled man named Casey Martin. The man who can walk properly had requested to use a cart so that he may be able to get around. The PGA

said no because they felt that it would give him an unfair advantage. Under state law, accommodations need to be made as long as the accommodation does not change the essential nature of the activity. When asked by Michael, one audience member said that walking was part of the game. Another member, who coincidentally played golf, said that walking isn’t part of it. The Supreme Court had taken the Martin’s side. Scalia had written the dissenting opinion to say that the point of the game is simply amusement. Equality is not part of it. If it had been, everyone should’ve just been given a cart.

Michael says we need to know where people are coming from when they decide on issues. We need to know what values of something a person is willing to uphold. He brings in the contemporary issue of same-sex marriage where some people value marriage’s use of procreation and others value its meaning of commitment. By knowing what people uphold morally, we can have respect for our opponents’ opinions and have a better discussion towards the improvement of the country.

A democratic government is a system where power is given to the people, who can freely elect representatives to voice their concerns. It wasn’t as widespread as it is now.The article suggests that democracy has declined and have plateaued. After 1984, it seemed that the entire world was beginning to become more free but now it has plateaued. Only 46 percent of 195 countries was completely free and 28 percent was partly free. The other 26 percent is not free at all.The percentage of free countries in the Middle East is the lowest in the world with 13 countries(72% of the Middle East and North Africa region) being not free.

There are many factors hurting the democratization of the world but the most notably is the rise of terrorism. The Middle East region have been in turmoil, since the Iraq War or even earlier, and has allowed it to be the best environment for terrorist organizations to rise. This caused a domino effect that have caused the refugee crisis and have been a major topic for the presidential race.

In places like Syria, there is an increase in refugee migration. It has caused a long civil war which resulted from president Bashar al-Assad refusing to step down in 2011.Even though the West pressured him to step down, he refused causing a war that have displaced millions of lives around the region. Another conflict is the continued Boko Haram ‘s violence for 7 years in Northern Nigeria. It has displaced 2.6 million people, including 1.4 million children, and left 2.2 million trapped in areas under their control. Starvation and disease are rampant. These two conflicts will take more years to resolve.

Democracy isn’t deeply rooted in many countries around the world and we, as Americans, should not take it for granted. Democracy isn’t always easily achieved and it has to be maintained so that it can become strong enough to protect its countries’ people and their interest. Implementing or maintaining democracy isn’t always the easiest road for a country to move toward. There is always a big sacrifice when fighting for democracy.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/report-democracy-in-decline

http://www.nytimes.com/ Article: Savaged by Boko Haram

This presidential election is not like that of any other in history and it is bringing about a great controversy surrounding politics. In one of Casey Neistat’s recent videos, he explains how it is natural for an appropriate amount of agreement and opposition in a democracy when voting for a democrat or a republican, but not so much in the current presidential election. Casey makes it clear that he is voting for Clinton, that it is absurd to have an opposition against this decision by voting for Trump, and towards the end of the video, tells his viewers to vote and support her as well. This creates more controversy, as shown in the large comment section, that Casey expected and is aware of.

A democracy is a system of government in which people of all ages, regardless of their race, who are treated equally with equal rights, choose their leaders by voting. I was surprised when watching Casey Neistat’s video because he is specifically telling his viewers to vote for who he wants to be elected. I don’t disagree with the points that he makes, but think it was a very bold choice for him to say the things he said in the video and found it unnecessary for him to state in the video that we need to vote for Clinton, disregarding whatever opinions we may have. The video was expected to have millions of views and he tries to target the young population in our country. On one hand it doesn’t seem fair to have another person decide our vote, for we are suppose to choose our leaders based on what we think in what we call a democracy. On the other hand, it is helpful and informative to understand political issues and how we can assist in sustaining democracy in the country.

I’m going to make the case for non-voting. Before all else, you shouldn’t be voting if you don’t have a grasp on the issues. It can be dangerous for the nation when you blindly cast your ballot. When you don’t know what it is you’re really voting for, bad outcomes can come forward. It’s wrong when people pressure others into voting hoping that they will vote for the same candidate as them.  It’s immoral for people to garner votes by making others feel like they’ve done something wrong. These people feel that those blind votes will do some good as they cancel out the blind votes from the other candidates. And there really are only two candidates who have a shot, so when a new voter comes around, her vote counts for two since she’s deprived the other candidate of her vote.  It’s better for the country to have well-informed citizens than to have those who are uninformed and/or easily manipulated.

Informed non-voters who don’t support any of the candidates are told that they are letting other people choose for them. They’re told that if they don’t vote, they don’t have the right to complain when the results are in. But the basis of that argument is that we all agreed to our system of democracy. We’ve agreed to a system where everyone’s voices will be carried by one candidate or another (which can never be the case) and where the majority gets to decide the future of our country.  And if that’s the case, no one really has the right to “complain”. Non-voters can’t speak about issues because they never took the actions to let their thoughts be heard. Supporters of the losing candidate have to keep their mouths shut because they agreed to uphold the majority vote. And supporters of the winning candidate have to sit in silence as they take the heat for all the dreadful actions coming ahead because of their binding contract, regardless if they felt that they fought for the lesser of two evils. Non-voters, as well as any other citizen, should be able to voice their dissent when things go wrong. Non-voters are just taking the steps to show that they carry no allegiances.

I understand that this is an election unlike any other in recent American history. There are many people voting against candidates out of spite to keep them away from power. For many, the concerns of the election have little to do with policy and are more about preserving good. But those who feel that none of the candidates would be capable of being the president should not be looked down on.

Once I turned eighteen during my senior year in high school, there was already this constant talk and meetings about voting and the importance of it. When they told us to register to vote in that big assembly room, that small thick paper they handed to us seemed so intimidating, especially when they asked for my social security number. (And you know it’s serious when the teachers let you call your mom for access with whatever information you don’t have imprinted in your brain.)

So in my high school government class, my teacher reminded us about why it was important to vote and invited us to discuss as to why or why not we should vote. To be frank, it is not so hard to understand why voting is important or rather, a privilege one should not take for granted. It is so easy to declare that your vote does not matter, and to spread that idea around. Which, of course, only increases the number of votes unaccounted for- which inevitably results in a group of people not being represented in the tally marks. Additionally, we are well aware that there are people back in the day who have fought and died for the right to vote. So, the same way our parents tell us not to waste food because of the children in Africa, we shouldn’t neglect the elections because of those who died and fought for this right to vote.

As we discussed people’s usual reason as to why they don’t vote, the common excuse of “I don’t know anything about these candidates” was brought up. Of course, in a country notorious for its laziness, there is an incredulous amount of Americans that don’t consider this idea: Research about your candidates. It’s not hard in this day and age to get to know your candidates and party and to familiarize yourself with what’s happening in your country. Each vote counts, and spreading that ideology that it doesn’t isn’t going to make this country any closer to being “for the people, by the people.”

With the presidential debates happening, it is evident that the United States is shifting away from democratic ideals. The presidential debate yesterday seemed like a debate on which candidate had performed worse actions rather than a debate on political issues. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both have issues that they believe are worth attacking each other on and many of these attacks from Trump are false accusations, which express nothing democratic. Trump has always made outrageous claims and statements to spur controversy and in yesterday’s debate, he threatened both Clinton and our democracy.

In the short article and video “Donald Trump’s threat to imprison Hillary Clinton is a threat to democracy”, Zack Beauchamp discusses how Trump, if elected for president, will be dominant and less restricted than we think. In the first presidential debate, Trump states that he would support Clinton if she is elected for president, and now he claims to be very motivated in putting her in jail if he is elected for president instead. Trump has always been firm and motivated on his stance on how he plans to change America, which will be possible though he has been reckless on spouting his atrocious beliefs. Zack Beauchamp recalls how these attacks are coming from Trump, someone that supports Putin dictatorship and plans to run the country the same way rather than as a president to show how serious he is.

After hearing how Trump would put Clinton in jail if he could, it is hard to believe that a majority of people support him with the presidency. In a democratic society, equal opportunities and equal rights are to be expressed, but with how the presidential debates are going, none of that is being expressed. Donald Trump as an elected candidate, should present ideas favorable to those that elected him, but has only made false accusations on Clinton and brought up racial discussions as a form of attacks.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222302/donald-trump-jail-hillary-clinton-second-debate