Essay on “Donald Trump: Terrostic Man-Toddler”
Would mockery really make Trump disappear? One might get this thought, when reading the essay ”Donald Trump: Terroristic Man-Toddler”. It is written by Charles M. Blow and was published in The New York Times in October 2016. His intention with the text is to mock Trump
Already from reading the title, we know this is not going to be a tribute to Donald Trump. Blow describes Trump very negatively throughout the essay and calls him a “Terroristic Man-Toddler”, “Brat” and “Domestic Terrorist”, and that is just a small selection of the words he uses. Is clear from the start that Trump is characterized very negatively and one-sided. Trump is multiple times compared to a child or a toddler “Go to your
…show more content…
gilded room, Donald.
The adults need to pick a president”. You get the impression that Trump is a spoiled brat, who won’t admit defeat “This is the kind of childish person who, when losing, flips over the board and yells insults at his family,…”. At the same time, he is also portrayed as bigot, who is both sexist and racist. In the essay, we hear about three times Trump was sexist, because he objectified women and a 12 year old child, which is sort of pedophilic. He admits that he would want to date his daughter, if she wasn’t his daughter “This is the same man who marveled on television about his daughter Ivanka’s “very nice figure” and mused, “I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps, I would be dating her”” . Relating to this, Blow questioned Trumps audacity to call out Hillary Clinton’s husband past, when Trump himself has so many skeletons in his closet “That man is lecturing someone …show more content…
else about their past and calling them disgusting?” . The writer also offer an explanation to why Trump is such a man-toddler “This man is a brat whose money has stunts his maturation”. In short in can be said that Trump is characterized as being child-like, spoiled, hypocritical, objectifying, sexist and racist bigot. Blow doesn’t falter in his critique of Donald Trump.
At first you might get the idea that Blow just want to mock Trump, and yes that is somewhat part of his intention. However as earlier mentioned, his intention is that Trump should be laughed at, and that his “querulous nature shouldn´t be coddled; it should be crushed”. And because of that, I don´t think his choice of words and tone is beneficial to his intention. His demeaning wording doesn’t help his message get out to the people who doesn’t necessarily already share his opinion. And it is those people he wants to reach, if he wants things to change. You don’t change people’s minds by having a harsh tone and a one-sided argumentation. And for people who haven’t formed an opinion about him, it can seem like the writer tries to force an opinion on them, because it’s so subjective too. It seems like he tries to make Donald trump appear as a big bad joke, who should be allowed near anything, and I think it would work better if had suppressed all his anger and resentment towards Trump and instead had focused on showing how big an idiot Trump is, without resorting to insults, which ironically seems a little bit childish. However as before mentioned, he intention to mock Trump, works good in tandem with his harsh tone and insults. But it is not entirely reasonable to have such a harsh tone, and it certainly doesn’t help Blows intention. Trump might be a big bigot, but that only means that he should get proper critique and not
this mockery, because the mockery will only strengthen him and give him his 5 minutes of fame and lead his followers further away from reason. So, to sum up, Trump is characterized very negatively, and that works well with Blows intention to mock Trump. However, his main intention is to make other people mock him too, because we shouldn’t encourage people like him to be in the oval office. What kind of world would allow a man like Trump to get this far in the presidential election?
Sanders says that Rushie “articulates as eloquently as anyone.” Instead of using a condescending tone or harsh diction to rebut what Rushie says, Sanders successfully uses a respectful tone to respect Rushie’s point of view, even though he doesn’t agree with it. While writing his essay, Sanders also connects with the reader by using words such as “I,” “our,” and “we.” He also says “for ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our descendants” to connect with the reader and include himself with the reader by using “our” not a second person point of view. Even though Sanders is going against what Rushdie says, there isn’t any part in the essay that shows that Sanders is being disrespectful. Sanders acknowledges what he has to acknowledge, but at the same time, articulately explains what his views
Trump, lacking political experience, is “thin-skinned” and is a “non-precedent” president. The article on the Women’s March not only addresses Trump insulting women, but the importance of a call to action. Describing Trump, words like “impetuous,” “thin-skinned,” and “trouble” begin to build the support for the movement and how Trump is far from precedent. By using rhetorical questions, the writer juxtaposes the loss in the election to the loss of a loved one. In both situations, a person is faced with various emotions and ideas. However, Trumps inauguration set off a movement through, not only the county, but across the
Donald J. Trump, is known to many as the orange man who wags his finger down a long table of celebrities firing them left and right every Sunday night on NBC. To others he is known as the billionaire tycoon, who graces our headlines for remarkably insensitive or oddball remarks. All (not even possibly Mr. Trump himself), at least until now, viewed him as a possible candidate for the next President of the United States. But as polls indicate, and citizens across the country (both moderate and conservative) vote in favor of Trump, he may very well be sitting in the oval office come January 20th, 2017. Whether this strikes fear in your heart, or tremendous hope is beside the matter, no one can deny the fervor and mania Trump
Trump’s use of pathos is simple and repetitive. He claims, many times, that he will return safety to America, effectively ending crime and violence. Trump constantly paints the country in a dystopian light, emphasizing how terrorism and police attacks have placed the United States in a state of crisis. Besides making claims that crime is rampant, Trump also uses anecdotes to further incite the crowd. By mentioning stories about an immigrant killing an innocent American college girl and Iranian troops capturing American sailors, Trump highlights Americans’ safety concerns both domestically and
A simple definition of a parody is an imitation. My personal example of a parody can be seen by referring to my “Fifth Grade Commencement Address.” My piece is ironic in that my address takes place at a fifth grade graduation rather than in high school or college setting. Secondly, I ridicule commencement address clichés such as when I begin to quote Dr. Seuss’ Oh, the Places You’ll Go (32). Finally, I made the class president Donald Trump’s imaginary son, and throughout the essay I mock Trump. For example, when I write “…some of us will become hall monitors to help keep our halls clear of undesirable new students,” I am mocking Trump’s stance on Syrian refugees as well as Mexican immigration (30). These are only a few examples of how my writing reflects my understanding of
Repeatedly Donald Trump is witnessed at the Grand Old Party Debates, press conferences and even during his Tweet expressions, displaying the very demeanor that is disturbing to many voters. As stated by columnist John Hawkins and on the Blog Website townhall.com, he characterizes the following comments as Donald Trump's best quotes. "I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people, and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either." (Hawkins, 2015, para.
In a race for only one winner, it begins with the attitude and personality each reveals to the audience. No one wants their president to be rude and vulgar. Donald interrupted Hillary 51 times in the debate; he made faces, rolled his eyes, and “rocked” his body when Hillary talked. He put on his “I do not agree with you” and “that is not true” faces. On the other hand, from the start of the debate, Hillary showed her confident smile. Unlike Donald, she started the evening by thanking the host, the audience and the university for sharing its place for the debate. While these are small things, they truly reflect a person’s upbringing, grooming, and understanding of social
Donald Trump can be appreciated for his cunning business savvy and an ability to at various times throughout his career, make it big. By co-creating this reality show with Mark Burnett, not only has he capitalized on the public's desire to fantasize about (and for a precious few, compete for) achieving a high-profile, financially lucrative career as a business mogul, he has also brought to the mainstream audience a heated, emotional and stimulating debate about something that we all seem to have an opinion on: what it takes to be a great leader.
Main points: Donald Trump would make a very good president. Opponents of this view point of mine would have things to say like “Trump is a power hungry business mogul with a happy trigger finger” or that he is too forward and has no censorship of the things that he says to the public and press. They would also say somethings such as he would buy out who ever does not agree with him or will not let him do what he wants and that he could not run a full blown country with all the facets that comes with it.
Donald Trump is a republican politician and businessman who was elected on November 8, 2016, as the president of United States taking the power in January of 2017. Trump brought many worries to a lot of people in the U.S.A and abroad which made them unhappy, but his presidency also made many people happy, especially Christians and republicans. I personally did not watch the debates, but I was able to hear about it on people around me, as most of the people that I know wanted Hillary Clinton to win because they saw so much of discrimination on Trump. Trump focused his campaign and debates on focusing on changing America for better, but the better changes were saying was only to give the opportunities to Americans only, cutting off the opportunity
In the midst of one of the most controversial presidential elections in history, both political parties are struggling to prove that their candidate is the best choice. Clinton and Trump’s disapproval ratings are very low, but one has to ask, is there really a lesser evil to choose from? While Clinton has had her own fair share of past discrepancies, Trump’s track record proves much more troublesome. Donald Trump has proven to be an untrustworthy presidential candidate because of his misogynistic actions, his racial bias, and his corrupt business history. During the Republican debate on August 6, 2016, Trump had a falling out with Fox correspondent Megyn Kelly after she questioned him about some of his comments on women, where he referred to them as “’fat pigs’, ‘dogs’, ’slobs’, and ‘disgusting animals’,” (Bahadur).
Often referred to as ‘ The Don ‘, ‘ The Trumpster’, or ‘DJT’, Donald John Trump is classified as one of the most successful real estate entrepreneurs in the U.S. Donald was born June 14, 1946 and brought up in New York City, living comfortably, as his father, Fred Trump, brought home a considerable income as a real estate owner in Brooklyn. Perhaps Donald Trump is such a distinguished entrepreneur, because he has invested money in several different industries and been through a roller coaster of failures and successes.
In my opinion, Trump has traditional values. However, he has a mixed record. He supports the idea that the federal law “should protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation” (HRC). Thus, like Rubio, the best theoretical perspective that appeals to Trump is structural functionalism.
Similar to the corrupt politician portrayed in Parkman's essay, Donald Trump exudes the qualities of a "wretched, wire-pulling demagogue, who is as ignorant as the constituents that choose him" (167-8). The phenomenon behind his success in the 2016 parallels that of corrupt politicians during the Gilded Age. Disgruntled, uneducated masses throw their support at Trump in an effort to rise in social class. However, they mindlessly disregard that Trump is the embodiment of the wealthy upper class which controls much of the issues that upset them. Despite the many political indecencies that Trump has committed, such as acting racist or making outlandish unconstitutional promises, he retains support from many who, similar to Parkman's Gilded Age, "throw their cap up at the claptrap declamation of some lying knave [who] turns from the voice of honesty and reason" (166). Furthermore, his unbelievable attention from news outlets can be paralleled by Parkman's other quality of a corrupt leader who dutifully protects the rights of Americans because it allows "pulpit, platform, and press, to condone his vices" (166). Evidently, the corrupt politician can make promises to a vulnerable nation that are far from plausible, acting as a source of unrest, rather than a calming and reassuring force. As the Gilded Age was ridden with corruption and social turmoil, Parkman understood the
He thought, and others on Twitter, that it was an outrage that people were condemning him by society to laugh off and make jokes about himself, that sparked controversy before. The author’s main claim is that the Emmys shouldn't have brought Sean Spicer and become a Twitter moment online. That people shouldn't used people who were part of the presidency to be a gag and invite them to special events, even though they were once considered intolerable. This is the author’s main claim because him as a viewer didn’t appreciate the non needed cameo of Sean Spicer as he thought people were being too forgiving after he promoted actions by Trump to then throw him under the bus. In the article there was something that was not mentioned in the piece that can add credibility to this argument/stance is that how previous White House Press Secretaries or any other part of the Republican party who have renounced their post seem to make appearances more often than people who have not done much wrong. For example, Omarosa who “quit” for personal reasons from her job as a White House liaison, is now seen on the Television show Big Brother, after not being known what she did in the White House only to give intel about what goes on inside there. However, compared to Hillary Clinton most people can’t stand her