President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address possess a majority of the elements of propaganda and rhetoric that we talked and learned about in class. In President Trump’s speech he said at 37:59 “We came together not as republican and democrats but as representatives of the people, it is not enough to come together in only times of tragedy, i call upon all of us to set aside our differences to seek out common ground and to summon to unity we need to deliver for the people.” President Trump was saying this to get all Americans to be united. Lets not degrade one another let’s not hate one another, but to come together and be Americans and live in unity. The President’s use of propaganda in this way represents direct propaganda. This is …show more content…
President Trump is trying to show us that if we can get along in a time a tragedy and not think about our differences we can do that in our daily lives. Also the president used affirming the consequence in his statement. Affirming the consequent is a deductive fallacy of the form if something happens therefore this will follow. And he is saying when tragedy hits us, our people unite and come together, by saying that we can put aside our differences during tragedy he believes we can do this at all times which is and example of egocentrism. Egocentrism means you assume what you believe is correct even though you have never questioned your beliefs. At 52:52 the president says “.....Reminds us of why we salute our flag, why we put our hand on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance, and why we proudly stand for the national anthem.” The president was saying this to us to make sure we remember what the flag stands for, to remember why we are free. He wants us to respect our country. In this statement president Trump was using covert propaganda. Covert propaganda hides it aims, identity, significance, and
In the “George Bush’ Columbia” speech, George W. Bush used a variety of ways in order to make his mark and effectively assemble his dialog. One of the most prominent strategies Mr. Bush used was his sentence structure. He did a great job shaping his speech by initially addressing the problem at hand. He first stated what happened, who it happened to, and gave his condolences to the ones who didn’t make it, along with their families. Mr. Bush also seemed sincere throughout his speech as he made sure to mention each hero apart of the crew. Another technique George W. Bush displayed was the diction and tone he used while delivering the speech. From listening to the audio last week, I remember the passion behind Bush’s words and the sincerity
In the United States, the government has been run as a “representative” democracy. With every presidency comes change, however, one thing does not change and that is the State of the Union Address. Every President is tasked with giving a speech to address the state of the country specifically on the economy and the current budget. The speech is supposed to give American citizens a sense of hope, comradery, and belief that the leader of the free world is making every effort to make this country better for all who are apart of it. However, with the newly elected President, during his State of the Union Address he promoted division and intentional attacks towards immigrant in the United States.
43rd President of the United States, George Bush, in his speech, “9/11 Address to the Nation” addresses the nation about the day of September 11, 2001. Bush’s purpose is to convey the events of September 11, 2001 and what was and will be done about them. He adopts a serious yet somber tone in order to appeal to the strong and emotional side of the public and to his listeners around the world.
Throughout the speech, the Former President George W Bush strives to empower Americans by instructing them to remain resolute, but to “go back to [their] lives and routines”. He uses the personal pronoun we and the common pronoun us repeatedly to indicate that the people of the United States, who either saw the event on television or experienced this event firsthand, were and still are involved in this national tragedy. He implements this emotional appeal into his speech to involve all Americans--people living in the United States of America, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or culture, and to acknowledge that the American people have endured this together, and that they will continue to advance after this event with stronger resolve, stronger than ever. In addition, he implements personification to motivate and empower the American people. “Our nation, this generation, will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future” (Bush, 2001). “This generation”, again a synonym for the American people, with its unwavering resolve, will fight for its freedom persistently. He intimates that the future of America and of democratic freedom is in the hands of the American people: that the American people have the power to control their fate. The next sentence leads into America’s “philanthropically” democratic nature: “We will rally the world to this cause, by our efforts and by our courage” (Bush, 2001). This statement has been followed up by action only a few years later, when the United States intervened in the Iraqi War, Libyan Revolution, and even more civil wars to ensure the freedom of citizens from dictatorships, which in Islāmic nations, were militant groups, like the Hamas and Taliban. Lastly, the president utilized anaphora, specifically a tripartite structure, by affirming that the American people “will not tire”, “will not falter”, and “will not fail”. He implies that the American people will relentlessly fight for the worldwide establishment of peace and democratic institutions, a promise which America has kept even in the face of its own national crisis.
In this paper I am going to discuss the rhetorical appeals, as well as the argumentative structure, audience and purpose set forth by George W. Bush in his September 27 speech in Flagstaff, Arizona. More specifically I will refer to the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos, and explain how they are used to gain the support and attention of the audience and further the further the purpose of the speech. As I explain these appeals I will also give an insight into the argumentative structure and why it is apparent in this particular speech.
He makes sure his audience connects with him directly by making them feel at his level, and at hiss. This way he connects to the audience, and in exchange, helps his statement of unity. Using various examples of parallelism, anaphora and refrain, Obama brands the theme of equality and togetherness in our country throughout the speech, vital to gaining the respect of his audience. Obama recalls the ‘enduring strength of the constitution’ by delving into the past alluding to America’s allegiance to the Declaration of Independence by quoting “we hold these truths. that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
The article shows that America will never come together as one because everyone is always going to have their own opinion on a matter, making the nation divided. The confederate flag is a symbol of heritage. It was used by the confederate army during the civil war. There are two sides. The supporters and non-supporters of the flag coming down. The supporters were believed the flag to be a symbol of racism and gathered in great numbers, ready tof see the flag come down. The non-supporters were smaller in number but believed the flag to be an important part of history, that their ancestors had fought for. Neither side was willing to make a compromise. Personal opinions such as these will not allow the nation to become unified as one, which is only another reason why America will never be like “City Upon a
The presidential debate is all about persuading Americans who is best equipped to make the lives of the American citizens better. The candidates running for office must persuade the American citizens that they are the right man or woman to successfully turn the nation in the right direction. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both in the running to becoming the next President of the United States. During their Presidential debate both Clinton and Trump used rhetorical appeals to gain the voters’ attention and their vote. Rhetorical appeals include 3 elements of persuasion; Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is an ethical appeal which uses the writer’s own credibility or character to make a case and gain approval. Pathos is an appeal that invokes
This introduction presents his unifying tone that carries throughout the speech. Lincoln wants “both parties” to come together as a country. “Both parties” meaning the north and the south that have been fighting throughout the Civil War. Lincoln’s job as president was to unite his nation and bring peace between the two conflicting sides. Lincoln wanted the war to “speedily pass away.” He wanted the nation, as a whole, to “strive…to finish the work [they were] in.” He wanted the separation to cease and for the nation to “bind up” their “wounds.” Lincoln wished to have a nation united and not a nation
President Obama’s Address to the nation was presented on January 5, 2016. His speech was shown on all of the major network stations. The main goal of his speech was to get the point across to the nation about the increasing problem of gun use. His speech really focused on the issue of gun control and if it would benefit the country. Overall, the biggest idea of his Address was that gun control is a large issue in the United States. The way to prevent deaths caused by firearms can be prevented in other ways than taking peoples guns away. The examples brought up in this Address really stood out to me. The use of personal, national, and global examples really made his speech stronger on the topic of effectiveness.
Amidst the crowded race for the 2016 GOP nomination, one candidate has constantly been making headlines: Donald Trump. Trump has set himself apart from the rest of the candidates as he has become a sort of media sensation. His celebrity makes him a novelty in the journey to the White House, and his incendiary rhetoric has caught the attention of the nation. The contents of Trump’s rhetoric can be broken down into Aristotle’s three artistic proofs, which are described in Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy as: ethos—or character, pathos—drawing on the audience’s emotions, and logos—logical discourse (Meyer 249). Trump’s appeals to logos are weak, so he depends on his appeals to ethos and pathos to make up for his lack of legitimate
Christians are being persecuted more than ever and its time we put an end to it. Donald Trump gives a look into Christians in Syria, “You look at Syria, where if you’re Christian they are chopping off heads” (Trump). As a country we need to group together under Christianity because we are not unified. In Donald Trump’s video at Liberty University, he discusses how Christianity is under siege and we need to unite as a country and take back Christian principles. Many other topics are discussed during this video. Trump touches upon how we have a weak general who is not willing to attack ISIS, which is not good for our country. I believe that Trump is very influential and effective with the speech he delivers. He uses quite a few strong appeals and direct quotations from the Bible that relates to Liberty University where he is delivering this speech. Liberty University is a
Mr. Trump opens his speech with immediate attempts to unite his audience with the word “we” and to try to please them, in hopes of making them more accepting of his platforms. This attempt carries over through many different parts of his speech, displaying the repetition used by Mr. Trump to get his main messages across to his audience. Mr. Trump mentions how “We are one country, one people, and we will have together one great future.” This attempt is one of the many that feature Trump using the word “we” in order to link the audience together to understand that if
His ethos is weak: He had never held any position of political power. He had just spent the past several months spouting inflammatory ideas—whether true or not—that alienated much of the country. For his opponents, this change in tone is too little too late. Had President Trump began with this respectful, optimistic tone, his opposition would be far smaller, though the response may not have been as significant as the “MAGA Movement.” However, since Trump delivered such severe rhetoric prior to his election, this inaugural speech can come across as fraudulent. Indeed, the rapid progression from calling Rosie O’Donnell a pig to quoting the Bible when promoting unity is, to put it mildly, a dramatic shift. The logos, too, is severely lacking. “We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action—constantly complaining but never doing anything about it,” President Trump declares, yet he offers no plans for achieving the lofty goals he vows to accomplish. “I will never, ever let you down”—another impossible promise. These pledges are vague, but it does not matter. That is not the goal of this
On February 28 president Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers on television stunned everyone by saying that we need to restore the gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years. The president went completely away from the National Rifle Association stand on gun control, many Democrats and Republicans were stunned by his comments on gun control. He now wants to extend background checks to gun show and online purchases of guns. He wants to ban sells to the mentally ill and to some young adults, and he even indicated the ban on assault rifles. He even proposed the idea that law enforcement should be able to take the mentally ill’s weapons without going to court. But, his main proposal was the resurrection of a bipartisan bill from 2013 after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. He said in his speech “I like taking the guns early,” later supporting his statement by saying “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Many representatives from the N.R.A. contacted their associates in the white house about the president's comments, and many replied that it is just a “bad idea.”