In this particular ad, Hillary Clinton does not appear at all. Instead, there is a voice over of a man and clips of Donald Trump who speaks of the opposite. I chose this ad because of its title, “Just One.” My first thought was that we could only chose one of the candidates, Trump or Clinton, to be our president. Instead, the title really represents that one wrong move could lead to a lot of trouble and distrust.

This ad is ethos as the voice over tells us positive things while Trump is spouting his nonsense and negative comments. For example while the voice over says “In times of crisis, America depends on…And calm judgment” Trump’s voice follows immediately after with “And you can tell them to go f—themselves.” This ad is trying to evoke what is right and wrong and putting Trump in a negative light. Especially with the clips chosen of Trump, the ad is trying to show that Trump is unprofessional and uses poor choice of words. The ad is also logos because nobody would want to vote for an unprofessional candidate who constantly sheds negativity.

This rhetoric is supposed to show the viewers how Trump fails to fall into the qualifications a president is to have. While listing some qualifications, the clips of Trump clearly show that his attitude and tone do not follow it. I think this rhetoric is effective as it states the difference between Trump and past presidents. Clinton obviously wanted to tell voters that Trump does not give off the vibe of what a president should as he uses inappropriate comments and words.

Though I am not really paying much attention to the election, I have heard a lot of the negativity surrounding Trump, especially with his comments on women. The comments he have made is also a wrong move of his. He continually shows his lack of professionalism and any more of these “one wrong move’s” will leave him in an even more unfavorable position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqpQ4neS68g

Hillary Clinton’s campaign ad called Mirrors shows girls looking at themselves in the mirror with Donald Trump’s degrading comments about women, such as “she’s a slob”, “she ate like a pig”, and “a person who is flat-chested is hard to be ten,” playing the background. In the ad, an interviewer ask him if he respects women and he responds with “I can’t say that either.” The ad ends with  a question, ” Is this the president we want our daughters?”  I chose this ad because I got enraged from watching Donald  Trump  make such insulting comments towards women. There are so many women in the United States that suffer from anorexia and get bullied for their appearances and this ad highlights the absolute lack of respect Trump has for women.  Also, it is a clever idea of Clinton to  use Trump’s past misogyny against women to put her in a more favorable position. The ad uses all three modes of persuasion to convince the audience.  In terms of logos, it is logical for people to vote for Clinton over a racist and sexist Donald Trump who has no respect for women.  There is pathos evident in the campaign ad. It evokes an emotional response from the audience, especially women who are continuously attacked and mistreated by Trump. For example, after watching this ad I was agitated by Trump’s offensive remarks. The ad sheds negative light on Trump. As for ethos, the ad clearly emphasizes why Donald Trump  should not be president which mobilizes the audience’s sense of right and wrong. The uses of these rhetoric was to convince  people to not vote for Donald Trump. The intended audience is most likely women because the ad  is displaying clips of Trump insulting women. It is also targeting parents because the question asked at the end of the clip is for the parents to decide whether they want their children (daughters) to live under a president who doesn’t have respect for women. I think this piece of rhetoric is effective because it shows Trump demeaning women and most importantly how young girls would feel under a Donald Trump presidency.  It gives a acceptable reason why we should not vote for Donald Trump.

“Do you want a ‘you’re hired’ president in Hillary Clinton or a ‘you’re fired’ president in Donald Trump?” This line was said by the Democratic candidate Tim Kaine during the vice presidential debate. I choose this line because the difference between the two campaigns’ economic policies is clearly delivered. This line has all three modes of persuasion, which are logos, ethos, and pathos. Regarding logos, it is logical for one to choose the “you’re hired” president because job opportunity is important for anyone. It is also ethical, or ethos, to elect a president that will benefit the country by increasing employment rate. In the case of pathos, almost everyone can empathize with the joy of being hired and the grief of being fired. This rhetoric’s intended audience is all the employed and unemployed workers in the United States, especially those in middle and lower class. Kaine is trying to tell them that Hillary Clinton’s plan will create more jobs for them while Donald Trump’s plan will only benefit the upper class. The significance of the language used in this line is the two phrases, “you’re hired” and “you’re fired.” They rhyme with each other and only differ by one letter, yet their meanings are the exact opposite. Kaine’s usage of these two phrases creates a strong impression on the audience and makes a clear distinction between the two candidates’ economic plans that are being described. He also uses these two phrases in the form of a rhetorical question that does not require an answer, it looks like he is offering two options but he is actually suggesting that the only reasonable choice is the first one. I think this piece of rhetoric is very effective since it includes logos, ethos, and pathos. I was amazed by Kaine’s use of language in this line.

Is the election really rigged?

Prior to the final election that took place on Wednesday, there have been talks about Donald Trump stating that this election is being “rigged” by the democrat party. As Trump puts it in one of his rallies, “…people who dies 10 years are still voting…illegal immigrants are voting…so many cities are corrupt and voter fraud is very, very common”. Donald Trump also goes on to say that the media helped Hillary out in the debates by giving her the debate questions ahead of time and that the moderator used hand signals to communicate with her during the debates.

According to Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, there were only 31 known cases of impersonation fraud in one billion votes cast in all US elections between 2000 and 2014. Only 31 out of one billion people were accused of being “voter frauds” and this number just doesn’t add up to justify the statement made by Trump. I don’t think 31 out of one billion is relevant to justify that election has been rigged for the democrat party.

With the whole idea of the media “helping” Hillary during the presidential debates sounds absurd to me. I don’t think the media is stupid enough to do such a thing and definitely not to help out Hillary. I think Hillary doesn’t need that kind of help in this election in order to beat Trump, she can easily beat him without needing help in the debates. To conclude, I don’t agree with Trump when he says that the election is rigged simply because his justification just doesn’t add up.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37682947

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/18/donald-trump-says-the-election-is-rigged-heres-what-his-supporters-think-that-means/

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