You would expect malicious rumors and constant drama to stay in one specific category of television entertainment for young teenagers, and not be seen on nationwide presidential debates, but that is not the case. With the simple desire to make the other candidate look unfit for the position of being president, a candidate may state something that arises multiple questions, which then strays away from the real topic of what their political campaign has to offer when trying to make the United States the best it can possibly be. All of which leaves voters in a confused frenzy when trying to decide who they should vote for. When it’s time to elect a new president people would hope to simply focus on what their political campaign has to offer, …show more content…
However, the candidate should not be held accountable for an event that happened long ago. It’s important to determine what kind of person they are based off what they are bringing to the table as of right now in their political campaign. Not for the mistakes they made years ago when they possibly didn’t even know they were going to run for president. The topics and solutions they bring to the table during the time of the debate and how they present them should be what determine what kind of person they are. It’s inevitable to try and make your opponent look unfit for a position that you are trying to get as well, however, what does that say about yourself? Bringing up events that happened in the past. In my opinion it is quite childish. But it’s understandable as to why they may do so. For example, if man commits a murder in the year 2004, then suddenly tries to run for president in the year 2020. Questions would definitely come to light. In this case, i would understand why the candidate may be held accountable for something they committed in the
There's something else troubling about the way we elect presidents--something beyond the personal attacks, the derelict voters and the influence of big money.
It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political campaign commercials of the 2008 presidential election reveals the different informal fallacies utilized to gain support for one of the candidates or misguide the public about the opposing candidate.
Now the whole philosophy has changed. Before the 1992 election was even over the Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report ran a story on the possible Republican hopefuls for the 1996 campaign. We have gone from a country who denounced campaigning to one in which candidates start campaigning for seats that haven't even been decided in the current elections.
Donald Trump posted a YouTube video offering President Obama $5 million dollars to produce his collegiate records and individual passport application (O’Connor, C., 2012). When contacted by Forbes magazine in response to this offer, Trump professed that the offer was extended due to the voters knowing so very little about the president’s personal background. Further stating, his motives were in the best interest of President Obama based on the current state of suspicion surrounding his presidency and this would all questions to rest (O’Connor, C., 2012). This is an example of the ad hominem reasoning fallacy and how the persuader focuses on personally attacking the individual (Larson, C., 2013, p. 245). The statements called president’s background and character into question. The objective of persuader was to further discredit the president in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. The response of the president and White House was predictable based on the oppositional views and past responses to other similar claims and requests (Larson, C., 2013, p. 245). Donald Trump committed an ad hominem when he launched a character assassination of President Obama by introducing meaningless perceptions of character flaws in an attempt to divert votes as well as bring attention to his upcoming show (O’Connor, C., 2012).
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Based on the performance and content of the presidential debate, Hillary Clinton emerged the winner. A debate is a typical adversarial argument, which is characterized by competition. There is one winner and one loser. The argument revolves around two people who have different or opposite ways of thinking, argue the same topic. The arguer is intent on changing the other’s beliefs. Further, the arguer usually tries to refute the opponent by showing or invalidating the opponent’s viewpoints. In this first presidential debate, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stated their claims and provided supporting facts to prove each is the better candidate for president. Both Donald and Hillary set out to sway more people to “their side” as choice for president of the United States.
Have you seen any of the recent campaign advertisements that have been published by the 2016 presidential candidates? Presidential candidates are known for campaigning through different media outlets, such as television advertisements, social media, and their party rallies. In these advertisements, the candidates bash their opponents and try to show you why you should vote for them, and why you should not vote for their opponent. Hillary Clinton’s advertisements have really stood out to me and have been able to grab my attention. Particularly the “Role Models” video, which displays young children watching Donald Trump make discriminatory and offensive comments on the television screen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign advertisement effectively gets
If their favorite party 's candidate has no chance to win, they turn to the less objectionable of the major-party candidates who does have a chance to win. Elections in the United States have almost always been winner-take-all affairs, so the rules have continually worked to reduce the viable options to two. The winner-take-all logic applies only within a given electoral unit; it does not require that the same two parties face each other in every electoral unit. But for purposes of electing a president, the entire Unites States works as a single electoral unit. The contest for the presidency became so central to electoral politics that it shaped party competition for lesser offices as
Before the debate began, I knew what to expect for the most part from both candidates, Donald Trump would bring his intensity and Hillary Clinton would show her political knowledge. I was very much on the side of Clinton before, during, and after the debate. Therefore, I will be slightly biased towards Donald Trump. Nevertheless, it is crucial for politicians to use persuasive techniques to enhance their speech to a wide audience, in this case the American people. Trump and Clinton differ tremendously in terms of what they believe is right for the United States. However, both candidates used persuasive techniques in the debate to try to influence the public of their legitimacy to be President of the United States. In the debate Donald Trump
Three weeks ago, Trump’s title elevated from GOP candidate to president-elect. Following this revelation, protests erupted and injured countless civilians and law enforcers. Even high schoolers, trapped in the wrong place at the wrong time, have been tear gassed and endangered through the protests. Yet, these protests determine nothing: on January 20th, Donald Trump will still become president. While hatred continues to simmer below the surface, protesters slowly realize that their street performances cannot ensure a better future, only a violent present. As they become discredited about the state of their country, the democrat’s anger morphs into anxiety. With a president-elect, who, in the past three weeks, has altered his platform and changed
The United States of America is known as the nation of freedom, a place to make dreams come true, and where equal rights are followed. However, our education in history shows a different perspective. The citizens have had a complicated time convincing the mind of Congress on modifying the rights of the people. Before, women could not vote to choose the future of America, yet after many marches, the women who rose up to speak with great fervor accomplished their goal of making it possible for women to vote. The Presidential Election is a time for people to vote for the leader of the country. As I turn 18 yrs old, I have the opportunity to vote for this country’s future. What led me to the desire of voting was hearing Donald Trump’s negative
Not a day goes past that without hearing about the presidential candidates. The local polls, debates, drama, and the daily attacks people in the political parties. I hear this information whether I want too or not. One can always be up to date when it comes to the upcoming election either on the television news, or radio, and reading about it in the daily newspaper. And the presidential election seems to be what everyone is talking about or using social media to express their own personal sides. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s not like every year we get a new commander and chief. The presidential election is something that Americans looks forward to every four years. People across our nation get to vote and be part of our great democracy in the
Dear President Rouhani, I could not agree more with President Warren. Excuse me, Senator Warren. Mr. President, what has been happening in some of our countries in our region for the past days, weeks, months, years, and decades, are very much unfortunate, the hostages are included. But keep in mind the terrorist organizations can not change our world for the better, only for worst. We the leaders have the capability of such a godly, and divine act. President Obama, the First Lady, Vice President Biden, Senator Warren, and others have been known by me for some wonderful years now. Releasing some of their own during the holidays will be a wonderful start for a better relationship between all of our countries in our world on the God gifted planet of ours.
Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience that I should be the next class President The 16th president Abraham Lincoln once said "Character is like a tree and reputation is like a Shadow. The shadow is what we think of it, the tree is the real thing."
Much propaganda is aimed at belittling opponents, making them seem untrustworthy or idiotic. Name-calling is a tactic that gets the point across fast and can have a detrimental effect to the receiving side. One can see politicians of every race and gender being called “stupid”, “incompetent”, and other more colorful names. Edwin Diamond and Stephen Bates wrote, “Name-calling and invective are themselves nothing new in American political life. Washington was called a "Whore Master" and would-be-monarch; Jefferson a coward and atheist; Lincoln, a "rail-splitting baboon." Franklin O. Roosevelt, Jr., as a surrogate for John Kennedy in the West Virginia primary in 1960, declared Hubert Humphrey was a draft dodger.” (Diamond 327). This shows not only a wide variety of slander, but also that name-calling has always been a part of politics, even in the very first United States presidential election. In the 2010 presidential election, Sarah Palin, who was runni...