I noticed that most of the blog posts over the last few weeks are about democracy in the United States, however, we need to keep in mind that democracy also exists in other countries, and South Korea being one of them, its democracy is being threatened by the scandal that its President Park Geun-hye is involved in and possibly controlled by a Shamanistic cult.

The story starts with the discovery of some of Ms. Park’s speeches that are edited by her close friend Choi Soon-sil, who doesn’t hold any official position in the government. According to the New York times article “A Presidential Friendship Has Many South Koreans Crying Foul” by Choe Sang-hun, “she even had power over the president’s wardrobe, overseeing the design of her dresses and telling her what colors to wear on certain days.” As the investigation goes on, people find out that Ms. Choi’s father Choi Tae-min, is the founder of a mysterious cult called the Church of Eternal Life, and also the mentor of Park’s father, Park Chung-hee, the President of South Korea from 1963 to 1979. There have been rumors surrounding Ms. Park and Mr. Choi’s relationship even before she is elected. As the article states, “In a 2007 diplomatic cable made public through WikiLeaks, the American Embassy in Seoul reported rumors that Mr. Choi ‘had complete control over Park’s body and soul during her formative years and that his children accumulated enormous wealth as a result.’ One such tale held that Ms. Park, who has never married, had his child. ” It is possible that his religious influence is passed on to his daughter, and if Ms. Park is a member of the cult, Ms. Choi is able to affect the President’s decisions or even her policy making.

Ms. Park has apologized for receiving help from Ms.Choi in her speeches, but she never acknowledged any involvement with her father’s cult. If the scandal is proven to be true, it means that there is no such thing as democracy in the Korean government since the President is following the orders from some secret organization instead of the will of the citizens, but the fact that someone outside of the government has such influence over the President without its people knowing already crumbles the democratic images of South Korea in our minds.

Many Americans are looking to see if third parties candidates can do more than just spoil the elections.The two major party nominees, Trump and Clinton, are disliked by many Americans and are the least popular presidential nominees in history. Polls showed that Clinton among registered voters was 42 percent favorable and 56 percent unfavorable. On the other hand,Trump was favorable at 37 percent and unfavorable at 62 percent . This means that voter turnout matters more than any other presidential election.

In John Oliver ‘s video about third parties in the election, he examines closely and showed that there isn’t a perfect third party candidate either. John Oliver discusses the third party nominees’ policies and views on important issues like student debt and climate change. I agreed with what John Oliver is saying because the nominees were just spouting simplistic views that are hard to implement.  And when you look deeper into them, most of them doesn’t make sense.

From the Green party, Jill Stein plans to cancel student’s debt by making the government pay for it like they did banks. While this may sound like a great plan, John Oliver points out that her plan is unachievable and cracks when analyzed deeper. Another candidate is Gary Johnson. His plan is to make the federal government as small as possible. His answer, regarding to having a smaller government, is to shut down important federal agencies like education, housing and urban development, and commerce. He also opposes establishing a minimum wage which is harmful to Americans in the middle and lower class. Their plans are going to hurt the American government more than before. An important point to make is that the video is disliked by at least 20k people because people commented that he is just spreading propaganda and misrepresenting Jill Stein’s plans. It is also interesting to see that the media plays an essential role in the presidential election.

We can conclude that there is no perfect candidate in this race. John Oliver says “When people say that we have to choose  lesser of two evils, they are right because we have to choose the lesser of 4”. Now, I realized that these third party candidates are not any better than Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-eight-days-before-presidential-election-a-barometer-of-where-things-stand/2016/10/30/d2eb8924-9eb2-11e6-b74c-603fd6bbc17f_story.html

It’s hard to believe that idea of democracy is over 2000 years old, especially since we consider America to be one of earliest the democratic powerhouses. This just isn’t true, there have been many societies which have used democracy to govern its people. Although, it is worth mentioning that the democracy we see today is different from democracy in it’s earliest stages. Greece is one of the oldest societies to have records of democracy which span back to the 6th Century B.C.E. Their democracy focused on leaders who were chosen by the people, usually the elders, and worked alongside the public to manage the village or community.  This is referred to as tribalism or primitive democracy and it is very similar to our version of democracy. The only differences are that in tribalism, the leaders aren’t officially elected but rather, recommended by the people. Unlike in the current form of democracy, the leaders only interacted with people from their community, there was not a larger form of government to connect them.

The next step towards our modern democracy can be seen in Rome at around 450 B.C.E.  The last king of Rome lost his position in 510 B.C.E when a group of aristocrats acted on social unrest and removed him from power. A new constitution was crafted but it left the plebians, the middle and lower class people of the time, unsatisfied. After much backlash, Rome instituted a group of new laws, the Twelve Tables, along with a group of new leaders. Said leaders could only govern for two years but the new laws allowed the plebeians to run for political positions. This form of democracy is very complex and but somewhat similar to ours. A major difference was that there were two Consuls, the Roman equivalent of a president. Another difference is that senators had to be rich and own land to be a part of the senate. Other than that, there are few differences between our democracy and the Roman democracy. The Roman senate passed laws and policies and the assemblies, were institutions that allowed the public to cast votes.

The democracies of the past are slightly different to the form of democracy seen in the U.S. today, however, we can see the influence it has had on us. Although it would be much later until we would see the three branches of government the fundamental values were there all along. Its longevity goes to show, how effective and practical democracy truly is.

In the third presidential debate, Donald Trump refused to accept the results of the election.  Trump stated that the media is so dishonest and so corrupt and they poison the minds of the voters. He even stated that Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to run because she is guilty of a very serious crime. Trump’s refusal received heavy criticism.  I think that it is outrageous for Trump to say that he has so little faith in this country and he won’t accept the results if he loses. As a presidential candidate he should be respecting the country and its democracy, not discrediting it. It shows that Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, is not qualified to run for president.  He is belittling and talking down on our democracy.  President Obama even showed disapproval of Trump as he states,  “when you’re whining before the game is even finished shows that you’re not up for the job.”  In Trump’s universe, he is always the winner and now that he is falling behind in the polls, his only answer to his defeat is fraud. As Clinton mentioned in the debate, every time Trump loses or something is not in favor of him, he claims that it is “rigged.” I feel like this debate clearly show that Trump is not qualified to run for president. His mindset is completely wrong.  How can someone who is looking down on American Democracy become president? It just doesn’t make any sense. I literally scoffed at his position and dismayed that a presidential candidate is unwilling to concede for the good of the country that has been part of the US  tradition for years. The acceptance of the election results is fundamental to our democracy. If Trump does not win the election, it is most definitely not because the presidential campaign is rigged but because he failed as a candidate. He was never prepared to become our leader.

I found the “A place for everyone” ad by Hillary Clinton to be quite a remarkable campaign rhetoric. This ad is portraying the message of America, as we all know it, to be a place where anyone is welcomed. Hillary is conveying the message that everyone is this country should be treated equally, whether they are rich or poor. She wants to stabilize the economy so that everyone should live happily and not just the rich. She wants an affordable educational system so everyone can get a chance to get educated because, as she says it, that’s the best way to satisfy our kids and grandkids.

I believe that this campaign ad is illustrating pathos because it has an emotional sense to it. After seeing this ad, I definitely felt something in me trigger emotionally. The goal here was to make sure everyone has value, not just the rich. Hillary wants families to be together and work together to make America great. She wants families to make sure their kids are receiving education and heading towards the right direction. She wants everyone to work together and make sure that we all have a place in this country. Her goal is to bring everyone together and that, in my opinion, is why I think this campaign is representing pathos.

The intended audience of this video are the citizens of the United States. She is basically speaking to everyone in this country because she wants everyone to work together and “heal” this country. Hillary also wants everyone to lift each other up to make this a better place than it already is. She wants to send a message to not only every boy and girl in this country but, in the entire world as well. The significance of the language used in this ad is important because it is speaking to everyone. It is giving a meaning to every human being in this country and making sure that no one is left out. I believe that this is a strong piece of rhetoric and it is very effective in terms of convincing citizens to vote for Hillary.

https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database/hillary-clinton-a-place-for-everyone/MTAvMTkvMTY6QSBQbGFjZSBmb3IgRXZlcnlvbmU

I chose Hillary Clinton’s ad ‘Measure’ because it brings up a really important issue that might be overlooked in the election. When I first saw it, it pulled a bit at the heart strings.

Parents might be the primary intended audience. But the ad is meant to affect anyone who knows a kid, whether that be their sibling or their neighbor’s child. The ad uses ethos to make people want to do the right thing. This is clear when she says that greatness in America is measured by the values we put onto children.  It wants people to create a country where children are able to live happy. In a nice way, it’s trying to show that pushing our burdens onto the next generation is wrong. It also uses pathos by visually showing snippets of things parents can relate to.

The beginning of the video is meant to highlight the wrong values that Donald Trump holds. She says the greatness is not measured by the height of skyscrapers or the money in our bank accounts to show that Donald Trump is just a business man. He may put a lot of attention to America’s economic problems, put he pays no attention to children and families. This video turns from an anti-Trump ad to a pro-Hillary ad where she says that she had been working with families her whole life. She speaks about making college more affordable and creating jobs. Along with the visuals of the parents and children smiling happily side by side, an emotional response is evoked. The final shot where Hillary is taking a picture with a little boy shows that she shares in the same values as the parents.

I think this ad is very effective because, to a parent,  a child is a lot more important than immigration or terrorism. So much emotion is brought with these moral convictions that it can ultimately decide the vote for someone.

One huge aspects with campaigns, is appealing to a certain group of voters, whether it is towards a specific gender, race or income bracket. It is known that each political party attracts certain groups of people. With the Democratic party getting the votes of the lower-income groups, racial minorities and liberals, and the Republican party attracting the higher-income groups, religious and conservative people. Because of this, if there is a certain group of people who will most likely go in the favor of a certain candidate, there is likely to not be a lot of advertisement targeting that group as the campaigns already know the outcome of their votes. With the racist comments in the past by Trump, it seems that Clinton has already secured many of the votes of many racial minorities, a reason why there is less advertisement on racial issues.

When Bernie Sanders was still in the race, it was a battle between him and Hillary to get the votes of racial minorities, resulting in more advertisements regarding the issues of these minorities. The title of a Bernie Sanders campaign intrigued me: “He’s With Us.” When I first saw the title, I thought immediately of the slight similarity of the simple yet popular slogan of the Clinton campaign, “I’m With Her.” With the Clinton campaign, “I’m With Her”, it attributes to the fact that Hillary could potentially be the first female president who would be able to project feminism and leadership. With this Bernie Sanders advertisement, he is appealing to racial minorities and specifically the “black vote.” In this advertisement, Danny Glover, a well-known African-American actor and political activist, is the campaign surrogate for Sanders. Glover mentions his experience with segregation and that once he saw the video of a young Sanders protesting against segregation, he thought it was powerful. He also mentions the goals of Martin Luther King Jr., where racial minorities would come together around economic and political injustice, connecting this to the goals of Bernie Sanders.

There is a use of pathos and ethos in this advertisement as it brings a sense of empathy from the Sanders campaign to racial minorities, while giving credibility to Sanders to uphold his promises of these minorities. Using a surrogate who is a person of color who understands the struggle of African Americans and other racial minorities in the history of this country, emits ethos, as it shows the support of a person of color who endorses Bernie, which can convince other people of color to also look into Sanders as Glover does. The way the advertisement was edited, with the powerful voice over of Glover and the music, allowed for pathos, as it gave a more dramatic effect, making it a more emotional advertisement as it talks about race.

“There is nothing like sharing a stage with Donald Trump. Donald wanted me drug tested before last night’s debate. And look, I am so flattered that Donald thought I used some sort of performance enhancer. Now, actually I did. It’s called preparation.”

This was a quote made by Hillary Clinton at the Al Smith dinner, a charity dinner held in New York City. Many politicians were invited including the two presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  The dinner has always been seen as a casual event and because of that, both candidates had the opportunity to tell jokes. Out of all of Hillary’s jabs at Trump, this quote was by far the best.

I chose this piece of rhetoric because it caught my attention and got me to laugh while still having a point, a message. The message is that Hillary is always prepared while Trump is not and for the most part, it’s true. Trump is very impulsive, he says the first thing that comes to his mind and because of that, Trumps gets a lot of criticism. Hillary Clinton knows this and she managed to weave it into her joke. The quote also critiques Trump’s suggestion of a drug test. The only reason Trump wanted a drug test was because Hillary was still recovering from an illness and Trump implied that she needed drugs and medication to even turn up to debates. Again, Hillary is able to use this against him by saying that the only “performance enhancer” she uses is preparation. In general, this quote was actually funny and it fired back at Trump.

The quote is logos as it appeals to the listener’s logical thinking while drawing attention to Trump’s lack of logic.  This rhetoric works by claiming that Hillary uses preparation while implying that Trump does not.  Seeing as how this was said at a charity dinner and not a debate or rally, this piece of rhetoric may have been meant for people who aren’t really into politics, such as myself. The only language that is worth noting is the term, “performance enhancer”. In the world of sports, it is seen as a way to unfairly get an advantage. This is why the joke of preparation being a performance enhancer is funny. This piece of rhetoric is very effective because it is simple yet it grabs the listener’s attention.  Personally, I couldn’t stop laughing and I agreed with the point she was trying to make. If that was the point of Hillary’s  joke, then she was successful.

“Make America Great Again”

Donald Trump started of his campaigning with this slogan. The rhetoric to this slogan is quite interesting. Using the three main parts of rhetoric we looked at, logos, pathos and ethos, we see that this slogan uses pathos and ethos. Logos is the logic that is used in speech and y saying “Make America Great Again” it doesn’t imply much logic as to what he is saying. Pathos more so deals with the emotion that the person feels when they hear something. Trumps slogan definitely made people feel unsure of how the government was being run and that it needed to change for the better. By saying again, he implies that the country we live in was at a low point, and many patriotic people would disagree that America was always great. Since he said tis it made those people look at our state of economy and many other things and realize that something needed change. Then after being an emotional state we feel that Trump, because he is the one saying this slogan, is the one that is going to make America great again if he gets elected. Ethos can be found in this slogan as well. Like my last point about pathos it is seen that Donald Trump is set out to pursued us to believe that he is the one that will make our country great. In the clip provided Trump by using the terms dreaming for your future it makes us feel that we need to dream and he will be the voice that will make is easier. Pathos is the biggest component of how Trump is conducting his speech and without much logic he has still gain voters.

Trump wanted to go after the family demographic by saying “for every parent who dreams for their child”, in the video provided, and then later he refers to safety. He feels that the family vote can be very important because it relates to almost everyone and everyone had dreams at one point. By saying this and going after this demographic he wants the emotions to come through for all these families. The use of language is supposed to get you to believe that Trump is out to make change in our country, whereas in reality many people look at trump and don’t see that he can make a difference and won’t benefit our country positively. Trump has too many problems to where a speech about making us great again won’t be able to help how people perceive him. This piece of rhetoric I chose is effective as a speech because it gets people emotionally involved to where they believe that they want to go with the candidate that will “Make America Great Again”

I chose this piece of rhetoric because I find Trump and his speeches interesting and his slogan always raised questions with me. Even though Trump himself isn’t the best candidate for the job he believes he is and it’s interesting to watch from a viewing stand point. When I first heard that this was an actual slogan that a presidential candidate put out I was interested in it and felt that it was just one big propaganda speech that Trump made so he can be bold and be noticed. Trump always interest me and this is just one of those examples that interest me.

Raymond Pietzak

The presidential debate is a battle of tactics and image that spans across the country as the two presidential candidates strive to improve their image or devalue the opponent’s. Yet strangely, in Hillary Clinton’s advertisement; “Show Up”, there seems to be very little factor of social image in the video. Instead, it seemed as if the video itself was encouraging people to vote, calling the act to vote a ‘reunion’ of the country in order to protect the country’s legacy.

This campaign advertisement is mostly influencing audience through the use of ethos. It is only right to take action to ensure the country’s future. A smaller portion of the advertisement relies on pathos, asking the audience to unite for one purpose.

“You care about protecting his legacy and our progress. You care about moving forward, united as one.”

So perhaps Hillary has taken note that a sizeable portion of the population in a state has taken to subside in the upcoming presidential election. By issuing this advertisement, she addresses to the people that it is only right to rise up to band together. This effect is improved through the use of patriotic word choice. ‘Unite’ is a powerful and significant word in this period of time, where we are going through turmoil as a country.
This advertisement connected to me in that I initially did not intend to vote for the fact that, in my eyes, neither candidate seems up for the task of presidency. International conflict and social deconstruction seems to be the worst cases to occur in this period of time. With a recession and a growing hatred, both of these issues have grown volatile over the nation. So this raises my personal question; am I going to go vote? Probably. However, it is already decided that the state of New York would already be voting for Hillary. The campaign advertisement itself was meant to air in different states where the votes would truly matter. In the end, these strong words were meant for the less resolute states, ones that has a smaller bearing in the decision to vote.