Respond to Post 1
You will be getting back from me some individual feedback based on post #1. Some general feedback from me:
1. Refer to political candidates and public figures by their last names. You are not on a first name basis with the candidates.
2. Be sure to do your research and to cite after your point that your resesearch backs up your point. We need to be able to see if your facts support your conclusions.
3. Think about where your research is from. You will be more persuasive to your classmates if you aren't using biased news sources. I am also not impressed by wikipedia.
4. Please proof read your posts.
5. Be sure to give enough info so that your post makes sense (like what is the who, what, where, when and why for the speech you evaluated).
For the week pick a peer's post to respond to. They can be in either period but they have to have evaluated the candidate you didn't pick for post #1. Watch the speech that they did and answer the following prompt:
What was your opinion of this candidate before watching the speech and was your preconcieved notion of the candidate changed or challenged by watching the speech? Why or why not? Do you agree or disagree with what your classmate said they thought about the speech?
You are not required to do independent research for this post.
Your post is due by 8am on Friday, September 23rd. I look forward to reading your comments.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 1:47 PM
53 Comments:
I watched Hillary Clinton’s speech on gun control. Before I watched the speech I saw her as the more professional candidate in this election, but I could not look past the idea that for most of her speeches she was just trying to better her own campaign. However in this speech, she was incredibly professional while talking about this serious topic. While she was going through her formal speech, before she opened the floor up for questions, she never directly spoke about her campaign. Instead, Clinton addressed the policies that should be put through and the problems with the current system, and she spoke about the tragedies that have happened with the utmost respect. Clinton also stayed on message and did not go off on needless tangents about other issues. Even while the questions addressed her campaign she remained respectful to the topic at hand and did not turn it into a large campaign speech. I agree with what the student said about the speech. The student wrote about how passionate her speech was and that it was very persuasive. I completely agree with this, Clinton made it clear that she was passionate about the topic of gun control and made it easy for listeners to feel the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX72xheC630
I watched the Donald Trump “I am going to be America’s champion” speech, given on June 7, 2016, in Westchester, New York. Before watching this speech, I saw Trump as unfit to be president. He is a businessman, has no history in politics, and is a part of the extremely sheltered 1%. After this speech, I have to say that I have not changed my opinion. Trump’s facts are sketchy at best, and all rooted in what he thinks is corruption. For example, he says that the Russians, the Saudis, and the Chinese all gave the Clinton's money and got favorable treatment in return. While it may be true that the governments of these countries gave the American government money, to say that they gave money to the Clinton’s specifically is most likely untrue. It is probable that Trump said this to make Clinton look corrupted, something he seems to do in every speech. I do have to admit that Trump is a persuasive speaker. He is very confident in what he is saying, and while it didn’t convince me, I can see how it would convince Americans who share his views to put their faith in him. I disagree with the student who first watched this speech. They said that the way Trump spoke took away from what he was saying, and I found that that was the only thing that gave me the slightest notion that he knew what he was talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaR5TxQcGWU
Hillary Clinton delivered a speech to the members of VFW in Charlotte, North Carolina in July of 2016. Honestly before watching this video, I had little opinion on Clinton as a candidate or on her campaign as I have not followed the election intensely and have not had many opportunities to watch her speeches. However, the opinions and judgments that I did infer about Clinton and her campaign seem to be proven wrong in this speech.
First, I was under the general impression that Clinton would support large cutbacks in military spending as Democratic candidates are usually in favor of such policies. However, this notion was proven wrong in this speech. Throughout the entire speech Clinton appears to favor maintaining a very strong military and military presence; her plan does not seem to include any drastic military budget cuts, if any at all. Second, I believed prior to this speech that Clinton did not use her sex as an instrument to further her campaign. This notion was also proven incorrect in this speech. In the middle of her address, Clinton vaguely states that she has been the “recipient of numerous political attacks” and proceeds to quote Eleanor Roosevelt on the difficulty of being a woman in politics. To be fair, this is the first speech of Clinton’s that I have had the chance to hear so it may be that this utilization of her sex may be uncommon for Clinton. However, the topic did appear to be randomly inserted into Clinton’s speech to gain her audience's approval so I therefore am lead to assume that Clinton does this often.
I agree with Katie’s analysis of Clinton’s speech, especially regarding its reception. Clinton was, indeed, very shrewd in her mention of her father’s military background to gain favor from her audience. From the video alone there did appear to be a slight disconnect between Clinton and her audience. While Clinton did show zeal in some of her statements, specifically her disapproval of those who smear America’s greatness, her energy did fall short in some places throughout the speech. This may have been due to a lack of connection with her audience who did, indeed, appear to give rather half-hearted applause and reception at points. The disconnect also showed at certain points in Clinton’s speech in which she paused in a way that seemed to signal applause, yet no applause was offered.
Before I watched Trumps speech: I saw him as a businessman who was running for president only to advance his ends: at the expense of the American people. After watching Trumps speech I still felt the he was a businessman who was going to use America to advance his ends. This is also supported by Trump saying that he was going to propose one of the largest tax cuts in American history(1) However, he didn't say what group of Americans the tax cut or cut(s) would be aimed at. This made me think that the tax cut would be aimed at the wealthiest 1% of Americans, not the other 99% of Americans.In regards to what my classmate said about the speech, I do agree with what my classmate said about the speech. This is because, my classmate said that most of what Trump said was a lie, and this is shown when you go to Clinton's website(2).
1.Speech link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D43AX8cDL4Y
2. Clinton site:https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
I watched Trump's economic speech for the Economic Club. Before I watched this speech, I thought of Trump as a man who changed whatever he said based on who he was speaking to. My thoughts about Trump changed very little. He spoke to the Economic Club, and told them exactly what they wanted to hear. He spoke of what he would do to the economy, denouncing Ford's manufacturing of cars in Mexico and the outsourcing of jobs to Asia, even though he himself outsources the manufacturing of his own line of products suits, ties, and other items, to Asia, South America, and other "cheap labor" countries. He also discussed Clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark, saying that those "deplorables" were working people, setting himself up as a populist, a man of the people. He discussed America's economic troubles, blaming them on Obama, instead of a war that was not started by Obama. My opinion of Trump did not change at all - he is just pandering towards working and middle-class people, as well as conservatives. I agree with what Sam said. While what Mr. Trump said was true, it was "stretched and manipulated" to support what he was saying about the economy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_EGeoUdTnA
This comment has been removed by the author.
I watched Hillary Clinton's speech in Charlotte, North Carolina from early September. The purpose of Clinton's speech was to enumerate her goals for the presidency including guaranteed equal pay for women, higher minimum wage, and better education including access to vocational education in high school.
I already supported Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate undo the fact that I identify as a democrat and under the fact that I would consider her the most qualified to be president. However, this speech was able to further cement my opinion of her because much of its points were targeted at people of similar demographic to me. I would like a higher starting pay, and better access to education would be fantastic.
Sophie's analysis of Clinton's speech was within what I would agree with. I can tell that Hillary wasn't necessarily 100% truthful but he wasn't openly exaggerating or lying like Trump does. Similarly, most of the economic policy that Clinton wanted to pass also applied to me, which is rather appealing for a candidate. However, as a man, the equal pay issue, while I agree that it should be resolved as soon as possible, doesn't end up applying to me. End of the day, I feel that this speech was well developed to convince people of my and my peers' demographics to vote for Hillary.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?414955-1/hillary-clinton-campaigns-charlotte-north-carolina
(Response to Maya Mic)
My opinion on Trump before watching this speech was quite negative. I don’t agree with ideas and opinions, nor do I think he’s a decent person. However, before watching this speech I only truly saw Trump in a negative light in which the media I keep up with, portrays him in. I follow the racist things he’s said, his immature and disrespectful comments towards other politicians, and his inconsiderate views on minorities. I have to say, after watching this speech, I dislike him even more. This speech being mainly about immigration, and what he wishes to do if he wins the election, upsets me. Trump is clearly against immigrants, and argues the fact that they take the jobs and wages that rightfully belong to American citizens. He wishes to build a wall and wipe out all illegal immigrants as soon as he is elected president, and seems to have no sympathy whatsoever for any non-American. I feel as if Trump is a bit more than patriotic, and I get the vibe that he wants to prove to the rest of the world that America is the “best”, especially when his slogan is “Make America Great Again”. As if he needs to completely wipe out the country of immigrants who fail to “assimilate” (he actually said this in his speech). I agree with Maya, I think he does an incredible job at attacking opponents and current policies. I think it’s extremely hard for liberals to watch this and get something out of it that’s not either racist or ignorant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj-XOJsHKsE
This comment has been removed by the author.
I watched Mr. Trump's speech on national security and Hilary Clinton in Manchester, New York. Before I watched this speech I thought that Trump was a convincing businessmen, and had no experience in politics. He was unfit for president. I have to be honest my opinion hasn't changed a bit. My opinion of him was challenged just a tiny bit. His policy ideas are good he just doesn't have the head for politics.
First, he uses the Orlando shooting as a way to bash Clinton, saying that he would protect the right to bear arms.
Second his immigration policy was another topic. He believes that immigration to the US should stop, but that is how most people families have gotten here. Stopping immigration won't stop terror attacks, people will just come in more so they can feel safer.
I agree with Anussa his tone and wording impacted the audience for his benefit and in just the right way. He seemed to connect to his audience through the use of emotional trigger words, especially by bringing up the Orlando club shooting. And of course saying that the danger started with immigration leads the audience to is policy of no immigration at all. His gun control talk, like his example of the French shootings convinced the audience that Trump would uphold their second amendment rights. His facts were a little sketchy, which convinced me that he didn't do his homework on his facts before telling them.
I read the transcript of Donald Trump's economic policy speech to Detroit.[1] Before this speech, I had a firm opinion that Trump will do anything and say anything to earn votes. After the speech, my opinion did not change. I read the inflated statistics about Detroit's unemployment, how Hillary Clinton "seeks to label us, divide us, and pull us apart." I noticed that Trump, however, neglected to mention the irony in how he wanted to create a database to record and label all Muslims,[2] as well as divide America from Mexico with a large wall.[3] He claimed Clinton's "plan would tax many small businesses by almost fifty percent." Despite the fact Clinton on her website says she wants to "Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses so they can hire and grow."[4] Almost all of his claims in the speech were inflated, meant to deceive or just plain untrue. Overall my original opinion was validated and I completely agree with Matt Leitgen's post.
Sources:
[1]:http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/290777-transcript-of-donald-trumps-economic-policy-speech-to-detroit
[2]:http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database
[3]:http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
[4]:https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/a-fair-tax-system/
I watched the Clinton speech after she won the Democratic Nomination, which occurred at Brooklyn, on June 9th, 2016. My opinion on Clinton before I watched the speech was that she is a very professional woman, that is very qualified to be president. However, after hearing the Benghazi news, I wasn't sure if I completely trusted her as Commander and Chief of the military. After watching the speech, my favorable opinions of her stand. She sounds very presidential and knowledgeable. Her speech was very eloquent and uplifting, making her seem more trusting than I had previously thought. In Ingrid Koester's post, she states that Clinton clearly and effectively acknowledges her nomination and thinks that Clinton does a good job of getting her message across that "we are stronger together" and "we need to lift people up, and not bring them down". I agree with Ms. Koester on this point as that seems to big a significant part of her speech, and is also a reason why countless others are in support of Clinton rather than Trump. After watching speeches from both candidates, Clinton seems like the more qualified and safer choice than Trump.
I watched Donald Trump’s speech about Islamic Terrorism, he delivered on August 15, 2016. My opinion of Donald Trump before watching the speech was not a very positive opinion. I was ready to hear offensive comments by Trump about women, immigrants, and religion. I was surprised by the concern that he had for the nation when he was talking about all of the mass shootings that have occurred in our country recently. This is how he gains support from his followers, by showing concern for the things that concern them. I however thought it was sad when he said that the ideology of Radical Islam should not be allowed in the nation, especially considering that citizens of this country have freedom of religion. It was offensive how he assumed that just because people follow the practice of Islam they are inherently terrorists. He again categorizes the problem of terrorism as a problem that comes from a single religion. He also blames Obama and Clinton for their foreign policy that has “unleashes ISIS”. I thought this opinion of their foreign policy was strange, because I’m not sure that somebody’s goal in their foreign policy would be to “unleash” a terrorist group that was trying to attack a nation that these leaders want to protect. This speech did not really change my mind about how I feel about Trump, and the ideas I have about him. If anything the speech just added more reasons for me not to support Trump and what he stands for. I agree with Emily, that Trump is not always honest in his facts that he gives out in speeches. He is willing to say a lot of things, true or not, just to gain support from his followers. I also agree that his ideas about foreign policy do not take into the fact that so many citizens of the United States happen to be immigrants. Overall Donald Trump’s speech did not persuade me in any way to follow him, or trust him.
Before I watched Clinton's speech on economic policy I saw her as the more suitable candidate. Watching this video did not at all alter my opinion towards her. I believe that she is the best option for America at this point although shes not my ideal candidate. I agree with Nicole's assessment of Clinton's speech in that there are a lot of great economic ideas put out there but Clinton doesn't provide enough detail on how exactly those ideas will be put into motion. I suppose it'd be quite difficult to get people to vote for you without proposing these large economic reforms but the people don't want empty promises, we want real solutions backed by feasible plans of execution.
Speech: https://www.c-span.org/video/?413874-1/hillary-clinton-lays-economic-vision
Before I watched Clinton's speech on National Security, I had just accepted her as the superior candidate. In the same way as one knows chocolate on ice cream is much better than horseradish. After the speech, I felt a little better about most likely having to vote for for her this November. My biggest problem prior to hearing her speech was that I knew almost nothing about HER plans for being in office. I knew she was a democrat and very loyal to the party, but i wanted to know her personal goals. This speech helped with that. Weather or not I really support her firm and assertive foreign policy, I haven't decided yet. What's good to know is that she has a plan and has some idea of what too far is, which is so much better than Trump. I completely agree with Nathan Noma because we both thought that she spent way to much time ripping on Trump. She spent the first ten minutes on it alone. I would have liked to have more time to hear what she wants to do vs why what Trump wants is a bad idea. For a speech that was supposed to be about her, I seemed to learn way to much about Trump.
I watched Clinton's speech to a crowd of middle class workers. She outlined her plans for the economy and job creation. Before watching this speech I believed Clinton was a very professional candidate who is one of the most qualified for the job we have seen this election season. Clinton has consistently explained her plans for basically everything and it is nice to have a candidate that clearly has ideas for how she can better our country. Clinton has a talent for speaking to exactly who her audience is and what they want to hear from a presidential candidate. As she is addressing this group of middle class supporter she is able to reassure them that she will fight for getting jobs back to the United States and promises cut taxes for the middles class and overall Clinton promises to protect the middle class, because she understands that they are essential to our economy. I agree with Nicole that Clinton is able to eloquently express her ideas in a way that is easy for Americans to understand. After watching this speech I still stand with my belief that Clinton is the best person for the job of President of the United States. She has numerous qualifications and has a plan for this country that has been backed up with research and facts. I believe that she has the interest of the best country in mind and is not only looking to benefit the upper 1% like a Trump presidency would.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?413874-1/hillary-clinton-lays-economic-vision
Response to Jillayne Clarke- Speech on Immigration and Terrorism
I watched Trump’s speech on Immigration and Terrorism in Youngstown, Ohio, the same place I watched Hillary give her speech. I was astounded by the sharp distinctions between the two, yet the same welcoming reception from the audience. The candidate who had been celebrated one week was being booed the next, and vice versa. The turn-around of the town's opinion of Trump was remarkable, and yet no less than what I expected.
Before watching the speech, I had always thought of Donald Trump as a shrewd man who believed he could win the election by telling the general public what they wanted to hear. Contrary to what many people believed, I felt that a man with a net worth of 4.5 billion must at least have some sense. I was never sure of his motivation for running for President, because I had never reconciled myself with his unorthodox policies. Overall, I pictured him as a man who knew the American people, and wanted to win the election.
After watching the speech, my opinion really didn’t change much. Trump has capitalized upon the recent ISIS attacks on the western world, changing his slogan from “Make America Great Again” to “Make America Safe Again”. Many citizens are frustrated with the seeming benevolence of America to the Middle East, and grow tired of “political correctness”, an idea that has emerged only in the last couple of decades. Trump is aware of this, painting a picture in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses and failures to act worsen the situation in the Middle East. He points out the occasions on which he predicted these losses, and describes how he would succeed where they have failed. Rather than recognize the complexity of religion and the distinct differences between each person, Trump groups all of Radical Islam into the category of “hateful ideology” which “oppresses women, gays, children, and nonbelievers”- a concept much easier for the average American to wrap their head around, as well as coming off as a more strong-willed and assertive policy. Trump employs a similar tactic when it comes to Iran, instead of discussing it in an objective manner, he chooses to describe it as a country with the mantra “Death to America”. In simplifying these complex and diverse ethnicities, Trump not only plants the seed of discrimination and fear in the back of the minds of the audience, he also comes off as much more confident and knowledgeable than the “wishy-washy” stereotypical politician that the public tires of.
Trump also addresses the fear about Syrian Refugees that many share about Mexican Immigrants- the fear of losing your job or your house to one of the many new citizens. Donald Trump talks about the “price tag” of Hillary’s Syrian refugee plan- $400 Billion. And Syria isn’t paying for this- according to Trump, the money is coming out of our pockets. If you aren’t worried about potential increased terrorist attacks coming from the Syrian refugees, now there's something Trump clearly views as tangible and inevitable that will come as a result of Hillary’s policies of admitting all refugees.
(Continued from post 1)
I agree with Jillayne’s interpretation of the speech. I would definitely agree that ISIS and Radical Islam appear to be an American “soft spot”, and that Donald Trump seems to exploit it more often than Hillary does. I’m not familiar enough with Trump’s proposed screening process to form an educated opinion on it, but at first glance it does appear rather haphazard.
In conclusion, although this speech reinforced my opinions, I did change my mind about Donald in one aspect. Regardless of the fact that many Americans(myself included) are passionately opposed to Donald Trump and his ideals, just as many Americans believe he is the key to Making America Great(Safe?) Again. Although you’d be hard pressed to find a credible source predicted a win for Trump in November, the election is still anyone’s game. After viewing this speech, my take on Donald Trump changed from a man who believed he could make it far in American Politics- to a man who did.
Speech: http://time.com/4453110/donald-trump-national-security-immigration-terrorism-speech/
On August 31, Donald Trump addresses an audience in Phoenix, Arizona on immigration reform. Prior to watching this speech, I thought that Donald Trump was not qualified enough to become the next president of the United States. Although Trump is a successful businessman and host of a reality television show, he has little experience in government and politics. Since Trump is considered a member of the top 1%, I also feel that he does not accurately represent the views of average Americans. After watching Trump speech about his immigration reform policies, these opinions have remained unchanged. Throughout the speech, Trump includes various attacks on other candidates and the current president, Barack Obama. The use of verbal attacks while speaking demonstrated to me that Trump lacks professionalism, which is essential to addressing our nation and foreign countries as a politician. In addition, Trump seems to stretch the truth of the facts within his policies. One example that stood out included his statement saying that, “all 11 million illegal immigrants will be swept out of this country within the first hour of office.” Logistically, I do not believe that Trump can deport 11 million people within an hour, let alone the first hour of office. Even though my opinion on Donald Trump has not changed, I do agree with Maya’s point that Trump’s speeches can be persuasive to other Americans who are undecided on who to vote for, easily influenced, or do not regularly participate in politics. In this speech, Trump uses anecdotes of people killed by illegal immigrants, provides numbers, and details on ending illegal immigration to provide a solid, persuasive argument for his policies.
Link to speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj-XOJsHKsE
Before watching Hillary Clinton’s speech in San Diego on June 2, 2016, I had a certain perspective that she was experienced, but like all politicians (I tend to be cynical when it comes to politics) she was crooked, and talked about a lot of things she doesn’t know about. She certainly did seem knowledgeable on the topics she addressed, which contradicted my preconceived notion of her, but she focused far too much on Donald Trump and his policies, rather than stating her own beliefs. She was quick to criticize nearly everything he said and explain why those programs were bad, but she failed to mention specific programs that she would establish to control these problems. All this together, her speech wasn’t all that persuasive to me, mostly because I don’t care about Trump. I’ve already decided that I don’t like him, and constantly ripping on him for half an hour only makes me dislike her. I agree with Lily to a degree, she explains her plans to an extent, but she interjects insults in those explanations, and then never finishes her explanations, never actually explaining how she’s going to do something. Sure, we’ll bolster Kurdish forces to stop ISIS, but how? Sure, we’ll drop more bombs on them, but how are we going to make sure we don’t kill more civilians when we do so, like has happened for the past ten or so years. Her plans were sound, but she failed to explain how she was going to improve them from what Obama and Bush had done in the past.
I watched Donald Trump’s speech that he delivered on September 3rd, 2016 in an African American church in Detroit. Prior to viewing this speech, my impression of Trump was that he was an egotistical and selfish individual, who lacked the experience to be President. Watching this speech did not change my opinion of him, it only deepened my original feelings. At the beginning of his speech, Trump said that he wrote this speech from the heart, but his body language and voice did not reflect that statement. He did not sound passionate about the topic, which was unemployment. He read from his notes most of the time and had little expression in his voice, making it hard for me to believe that anything he was saying was heartfelt. Trump also talked about his campaign a lot, giving the impression that he was there to promote and benefit himself more than to discuss a serious issue. The student who wrote about this speech said that Trump used very little factual evidence, and I agree with this. Trump continually stated that unemployment was a problem, and that he was going to do something about it, but he gave no facts to describe the issue or his plan for solving it. I had known unemployment was an issue before watching this speech, but after seeing it I felt no more informed on the topic or ways to go about solving it.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfZDKWo2LxE
This comment has been removed by the author.
Before watching Donald Trump’s speech on the economy on September 15th, 2016 given to the Economic Club of New York, I thought of him as a man who does has experience in economics, but no experience in politics. I also thought that he didn’t have a real plan for improving the country like he talks about. After watching the video, I respect his economic experience more, considering he runs his own business. But, I still believe that Trump tends to promote his ideas more extensively than he explains them. He talks about how he will bring back the economy into the U.S. to create more jobs nationally, which makes sense. But, He also talks about lowering taxes to the point where citizens in a certain financial bracket don’t even need to pay for them. Simultaneously, he talks about how Obama has raised the national deficit by trillions of dollars, and that he intends to lower that deficit. He doesn’t explain how he will pay off the deficit even with a lower income tax, so it leads me to be skeptical. In addition, he talks about how funding renewable energy programs is a waste of resources and that the coal plant jobs are more important that environmental policy. I disagree with this, since it has been proven extensively that pollution from these plants is increasing. Despite several gaps in his plan, he does lay out several other aspects very clearly; I only wonder if it will succeed in the way he claims it will. Although I do agree with the student somewhat with the persuasiveness of the economic plan, the several aforementioned aspects such as his lack of explanations, ideas involving environmental policy, and determination on making Mexico pay for a wall that they don’t even want make it difficult for me to believe or support Trump’s economic and foreign policy.
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_EGeoUdTnA
I watched a speech given by Donald Trump on August 31st, 2016 to the citizens of Mexico City. Before watching the speech, my opinion of Trump is that he is a wealthy businessman with not enough experience to be running the country. Trump seems to be adamant about the things he wants, but does seem like he would be willing to compromise with others to create a plan that would work best for the United States, or be able to have good relations with other countries. I think that Trump is using his wealth and current power to make up for lack of knowledge and experience as a politician, something that may not end well for the United States. This speech did not change my view much, but it showed that Trump was able to work together with another country, something I did not see as likely. Although my view of him in that way changed slightly, I still see him as mostly out for himself and really set in his ideas, such as building a wall. I agree with what Hailey said, how Trump’s idea to build a wall seems implausible both economically and practically, since people will surely find a way to get past this wall. I also agree with her when she says that it is a good idea for Trump to consider Mexico and America working together, although I am not convinced that he will remain faithful to this statement. Overall, Trump's speech did not persuade me to change my beginning thoughts on him as a presidential candidate nor as a person.
Video: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/remarks-in-mexico-city-mexico
I watched the speech that Trump gave on August 15, 2016 in Youngstown, Ohio. My opinion of Trump was very low before watching this, as I believed him to be unqualified for the position of president, and very egotistical. This speech did not change my mind. I did begin to agree with him as he recounted the details of the acts of terror committed by ISIS, and the pressing need for their destruction. He gave horrific stories of their actions, which made his ideas seem all the more compelling. However, his rhetoric about the Islamic faith was heavy with implications that all Muslims are terrorists, or hold "hateful ideology." I also disagreed with his proposal to screen all immigrants through an ideology test. On the surface it sounds like a good idea, but his hypocrisy shows through as he details the ideology that doesn't fit with his future America, one filled with "the oppression of women, gays, and people of different faith." Trump himself does not have good track record with any of those groups, and his supporters even less so. Another reason I was not persuaded by his speech was his intention to create a "Commission on Radical Islam" which would "explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization." I disagree with this because it would instill paranoia in the US, and encourage people to take justice into their own hands. I believe that this would weaken, not strengthen America. I agree with Hayley in her assertion that Trump's statements are largely inaccurate or misleading.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpLR4GgAL2g
I watched a speech made by Donald Trump in Manchester, New Hampshire. Where he addressed various issues regarding the Orlando shooting, gun laws, immigration and terrorism. Prior to my viewing of his speech I did not hold a high opinion of Trump. After the speech my opinion of him did not change. I felt that his policy ideas were not realistic, as were his views on immigration. Trump also took the opportunity to bash Hillary Clinton and her gun policies while he spoke about the Orlando shooting. I felt that this was insensitive to the people who survived the attack and the friends/families of the victims. I feel that Trump’s speeches target a certain audience, one that I would rather not be apart of. He uses trigger words in order to capture people's attention and get them to agree with him. I agree with Anussa’s review of the speech, that Trump can be highly persuasive but not entirely honest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFIVXkJWzfA
There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton must be the next president of the United States. I have followed the 2016 presidential campaign since the candidates began to launch their campaigns last year - and Secretary Clinton has proven time and time again that she is the most qualified AND INFORMED candidate in this year's election. Despite this, Secretary Clinton experiences a 54.5% unfavorable rating from the American public - and this is mainly because voters struggle with her trustworthiness (1). Indeed, I feel that the main reason Secretary Clinton is not running away with this election is the perception issue - more specifically, her seemingly stiff personality and murky legal past. In order to get past this issue, Secretary Clinton needs to focus on her policy goals while coming across as authentic and concerned with the well-being of the American people. This speech by Secretary Clinton regarding our economy was an example of what the American people as a whole need to see from her. Delivered in Ohio - a state whose manufacturing sector has fallen under hard economic times - the speech centered mainly on how to improve our economy. Halfway through the speech, Clinton changed tactics and bashed Donald Trump. Unfortunately, it has become only too common for both Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton to devolve to the tactic of simply trashing the other. Secretary Clinton must understand the history behind party politics in our current system. In election years where overall turnout is low, Democrats tend to perform poorly. The opposite is true during years of high voter turnout (2). Secretary Clinton must understand that the urge to vote AGAINST a candidate is not nearly as inspiring as the will to vote FOR a candidate. After this speech, I have not changed my belief that Secretary Clinton must do better as a self-advocate in this election. Furthermore, one of my issues with Democratic candidates is that they want many government programs to be expanded, yet they spend little time explaining how these programs will be paid for other than "we'll raise taxes on the wealthy." Secretary Clinton AND Donald Trump need to do a better job explaining how their proposals will be funded. However, I am still convinced after watching this speech that Secretary Clinton is the best choice for President.
Colden Longley made an excellent analysis of Clinton's speech. Ohio is a pivotal state in our Union, for both political and economic reasons, and Secretary Clinton (as noted by Colden) made an excellent decision in delivering a speech centered on economic policy. I also agree that the most persuasive part of her speech was when she discussed Donald Trump's business practices and how (historically) they have adversely affected small businesses - Colden also provided appropriate sources to support Clinton's claims.
(1) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
(2) http://prospect.org/article/one-reason-democrats-lost-so-big-midterms-exceptionally-low-voter-turnout
Link to speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVe51FZKDt8
My thoughts before watching Mrs. Clinton speech is that she is a long life politician and she would not make a good President. In my opinion she has had too many scandals, such as Benghazi, the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation. I think that a person who has that many scandals would not be a good fit for America, and listening to this speech did not change my mind.
I found her speech non memorable, she was talking about how her father was a small business owner and proceeded to tell us the steps of his job. What exactly does that have to do with a Presidential run. Once again she was making reference to how bad of a president Mr. Trump would be. I didn’t hear anything different about the platform that she runs on, then what I would hear on commercials. The one thing that stood out was the reference to how many solar panels there would be if she was elected. Madison Kuehm stated that Mrs Clinton’s facts were a bit muddled. I do agree with that. She barely talked about what she would do if she was elected. I think overall if she was going to make a change for America she would have done more during her tenure in the Government.
I had never watched one of Hillary Clinton's speeches before this assignment, and doing so has helped to broaden my vision about this presidential race. I watched Hillary Clinton's speech at Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina. I had previously had a preconceived notion that out of the possible democratic nominees, Clinton was not one who could relate to or understand youth in America, yet most of her statements and focus in this speech directly contradict that notion. Statements like making Post-Secondary education less costly or working on gender inequality truly reshaped my thoughts of Hillary as a cookie cutter elite. I found instead that she is hearing the views of the future of America. Additionally, her eloquence while speaking is a refreshing change to the constant trash talking and poorly worded speeches of Donald Trump. I still question Clinton's honesty and dedication to her promises, as I have throughout the duration of the presidential race, but this sheds a different light on Clinton, like I've never seen. I agree with Sophie Gleason that Clinton is both energetic and engaging, as well as relatable. Going forward I would suggest that she clue us in more to her "plans" for reform.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?414955-1/hillary-clinton-campaigns-charlotte-north-carolina
I watched the speech Hillary Clinton gave on August 11, 2016, in Warren, Michigan. Her speech was about economic policy. Before watching this video I viewed Clinton like most politicians. I do not trust Hillary and think that she says things that the people want to hear. I believe this mostly because of the whole email scandal in the news. I thought that Hillary attacks Trump too much. She says that he is wrong for America and just makes him look bad. She should be saying why she is right, and not why he is wrong for America. I think that she will, like Trump, do anything that will help her become president. Watching the video did not change my opinion very much. I still think that she will say whatever makes her look good. For example, since she was in Michigan she appealed to the auto industry and those workers. However, the video showed that she is very informed in some topics but not all topics. Clinton can also be very vague at times. In the video, Clinton stated that an analyst found that with her plan the economy would create more than ten million jobs. However, she failed to mention how her plan would be able to accomplish this. I agree with the classmate when he said that Clinton focused more on talking about Trump, when she could have explained more of her economic policies in larger detail. In addition, I also agree with the classmate when he said that Clinton was mostly truthful but was also vague at times.
Speech link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?413874-1/hillary-clinton-lays-economic-vision
I decided to watch a speech Trump gave on 6/22/16 in New York. With everything in the news about Trump, I was cautious about him as a candidate before watching the speech. While I haven’t looked into Trump’s campaign very much, because of what I have seen and heard on social media and the news I was not a big supporter. His harsh comments and lack of factual support for his claims did not make me want to support him. However, I knew that most of what I had heard about Trump wasn’t from the most credible resources as well, so I didn’t want to watch the speech too critically.
After watching the speech, I was honestly a little shocked at what Trump had to say. The majority of the speech was all about Trump’s thoughts on Hillary Clinton. He insults her and states that if she becomes president “Lord help us.” His vicious comments don’t make me particularly support him, as he spends nearly the whole time making jabs at Clinton, rather than building himself up. Trump also attacks Obama and his policies during the speech as well, and states that both Obama and Clinton are not capable of running the country. Later on in the speech, Trump talks about immigrants as well. I was a little surprised just how anti-immigrant he was, and that the stuff I had heard about Trump before weren’t rumors. Because of this, I would say that my thoughts before watching the speech have stayed the same, if not have gotten a little worse.
In Jordan’s post he talked about how lots of his stated facts were actually false, which makes me not trust Trump. I agree completely agree with Jordan and his comment about how if Trump can’t provide hard evidence and proof for his statements, he shouldn’t be making such harsh ones. I also agree with Jordan’s comments about Trump’s lack of concrete plans, and how they don’t add to his credibility at all. Overall, I agree with Jordan’s thoughts on Trump in this particular speech.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUW2-MUonbo
I watched the speech by Hillary Clinton that she gave at Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina. Before watching this video, my opinion of Hillary Clinton was somewhat mediocre. While I agree with most of her policies, I also agree that I am a little tired of seeing her in politics. However, throughout her speech she used persuasive devices and harsh rhetoric against her opponent that was effective in improving my opinion of her. She talked about creating more programs for mental health and addiction, helping college kids pay off debt, and raising the minimum wage. She also harshly criticized the republican governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, calling him "discriminatory and bigoted". I agree with Sophie that Clinton's speaking pattern is very persuasive and keeps the audience energetic and interested. Clinton knows how to speak to her audiences and talk about the issues that matter to them. After watching this speech, my opinion of Clinton was slightly raised after hearing her policy ideas, because I agree with most of them. I also agree that she is the best candidate in the race, but am tired of long-term politicians.
Video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?414955-1/hillary-clinton-campaigns-charlotte-north-carolina
Response to Madison Kuehn
Prior to watching Clinton’s speech in Hampton, Illinois, I believed that Clinton was the most qualified candidate to be president. That being said, I don’t necessarily agree with all of Clinton’s platform and I don’t trust a good amount of her statements. After watching her speech, my opinions on Clinton didn’t change much. She targeted her speech towards the average worker, focusing on topics like raising the minimum wage, supporting unions, supporting small businesses, and boosting the rights of workers. I did agree with a decent amount of Clinton’s statements, especially regarding raising the minimum wage to bring full time workers out of poverty and how important it is to focus on the issues that the common citizen faces daily. Some of her digs at Trump did have actual evidence behind them. For example, when Clinton explains the importance of working together she quotes Trump saying that he plans on fixing the system alone. By using direct and clear evidence she lead me to trust her slightly more than I did before I watched her speech. I completely agreed with Madison’s statements, as Clinton does make some vague statements, especially when she got very passionate about defacing Trump's stances on political issues.
Speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2u0NbHaq9A
I watched Trump's speech that was delivered on February 24th, 2016, after he unexpectedly won the Nevada Republican caucus. My preconceived notions of Trump before this speech were extremely negative, as I think he is completely unfit to be president. I have not found Trump persuasive previously as I am not impressed with how, quite frankly, much of what he says are outright lies. This speech did not change my views at all. Much of Trump's speech didn't involve facts, and Trump made outlandish claims, such as "we're going to build a wall, and yes, Mexico will pay for it," but fails to support these claims with any kind of planning. The few times Trump did use facts, they were mostly false, as proven by Mandii. The fact that Trump doesn't seem to have any plans does not make him a promising candidate for president in my mind. I agree with Mandii's analysis and feelings about this speech, as we share similar ideas about Trump's ideologies. Mandii discusses Trump's use of rhetoric to appeal to working class white males, and his use of bigotry and hatred to gain their support. I agree with this, as through watching this speech and my other experiences with Trump, I've seen the phenomenon that Mandii describes.
Before watching Hillary Clinton's speech on September 8th, 2016 at HBCU, I viewed her as an intelligent woman who would have no trouble leading this nation and doing what the country needs of a president. After listening to the points she made during this speech, my opinion of her has not changed in the slightest. I agree with the points she made and plans she has for this country. I have watched a variety of Clinton's speeches, so I already know most of her ideas and positions, and this speech truly hammered home what I was already aware of, such as her position on equal pay for all genders and raising the minimum wage so it can be sustainable to the average family.
Sophie Gleason's analysis and fact checking of her speech was very accurate and I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of what she had to say. We both found the speech persuasive and effective. I also agree with Sophie's point that Clinton could have elaborated further on her economic plan.
I have not had much of a chance to observe and keep up with the presidential campaign, but after watching Hillary Clinton's speech in Youngston, Ohio in July, my preconceived notions about her ability to govern this country effectively were proven correct. I have seen Clinton as a good potential candidate for the 2016 election. Secretary Clinton is proven qualified for the leadership position, and is experienced through previous positions in the government. Clinton follows the general Democrat ideals by decreasing the income tax and creating jobs in infrastructure and renewable energy. It was wise of her to give this speech in Youngston, Ohio where economic issues are very present in their declining and struggling manufacture-based economy. Her speech was very effective and persuasive as it presented an that economic issue and described a feasible solution to it. She shows her passion for the challenge of the community and appeared sincere. Her attacks of Trump, although typical of a presidential campaign and effective at decreasing the number of voters for Donald Trump, depict her in a negative light for verbally trashing him and his campaign. She presents herself as a problem solver and shows Trump as a man contradicting his words, even his own slogan, by telling of the outsourcing of his companies. This speech affirmed by perception of Hillary Clinton as a decent candidate for presidential office who is capable to act on a variety of issues in the interest of the public. I agree with Colden Longely's analysis of Clinton's speech and his resulting conclusions about the quality of the speech itself.
Response to Katie Frias post:
My opinion of Hillary Clinton is for the most part positive. She is the most experienced, and despite her faults she seems like the prime choice to me because of her government experience, professionalism, and capability to tactfully handle her image. Her loyalty to the democratic party is also something that I admire. The part that bothers me is I don’t know whether she says the things she does for the public’s benefit. Sometimes it seems she is more concerned with being diplomatic and keeping up her image than with truly speaking her mind. I have to admit that I don’t know too much about her, and this is just my preconceived notion.
The speech that I watched took place on July 25, 2016 in Charlotte, North Carolina at the Veterans of Foreign War Convention. She addresses veterans in the audience and speaks of the issues they face and what her role would be as Commander-in-Chief. The directness she used in laying out her ideas and addressing the audience surprised me because I had not expected her to be so forthcoming. Clinton did not shy away from talking about terrorism and combating it, but I noticed that her plans were a bit vague. For example, she said she has worked with experienced people from different fields and from across the political spectrum to come up with comprehensive strategies to battle threats of terrorism, but she goes on to say we need strong leadership as if that is her comprehensive strategy. She doesn’t dive into what her plans are which lowered her credibility.
Clinton’s credibility goes hand in hand with her persuasion, she establishes a connection between herself and her audience by mentioning her father who was involved with the military. As Katie said, this link between her family and the audience strengthens her position. Her post went on to talk about the audience’s reception to her speech, and I again agree with her that they didn’t seem well connected. In the speech I watched of Trump’s, the audience cheered openly for him, but in this speech of Clinton’s, the audience had reserved applause. I’m not sure if it’s a lack of energy like Katie proposes, but there is a half hearted nature in the enthusiasm of the audience. Overall, I agree with Katie’s stance on Clinton that she is passionate and persuasive, yet just not well received in this particular speech.
In conclusion, my opinion of Clinton is very much the same, but I did learn of her very persuasive nature. I still hold that she is a very diplomatic presence in the election and is still by far the most experienced. I did learn that she does speak openly on some of her stances on issues although she can be vague in her plan on how to tackle them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LLzKEudhgA
Before I watched this speech I believed that Trump is not suitable to be the next president by a long shot because he has radical ideas that are not realistic. After watching this video I believe that he has a way with words that persuade people to vote for him, but his ideas are still stupid, and seem quite racist to me. When I talk to people who support Trump they say he is not racist but I do not see how anyone can believe that. In his speech he talks about the gun shooting in Orlando and also about immigration. He believes that the only way to end radical Islamic terrorism is by banning immigration to the US for any part of the world where there is any terrorism. He says that it is not smart to let Islams in when those "people" are terrorists. He is saying that, because of a few bad people, we should not let them all in. Which is a radical idea. I agree with Anussa's response that he is very persuasive but his ideas are not reasonable.
As an avid follower of the 2016 presidential election, I have and will stand with Clinton. I have always viewed her as a very poised, knowledgeable, and qualified candidate, and even with all of the controversy surrounding her, I believe that she is best fit to be the next president of the United States. I see more eye to eye with her economic and social policy than with any other candidate currently in the running, and I believe that she holds the potential to change America for the better.
I watched a speech given by Clinton on the 7th of June, where she spoke about breaking history by being declared as the first woman to be a major party nominee. After watching this speech my preconceived notion of her was not greatly changed. If anything, I respect and see her composed side even more. The speech she gave was almost an acceptance speech as the democratic nominee, but she also made sure to acknowledge her previous running opponent, Bernie Sanders, and congratulate him for how far he had gotten. I found that very respectable of her, so it puts her in a higher place in my mind. Additionally, Clinton talks about her visions as well as negating many of Trump’s ideals. Clinton briefly hits on her visions for the future of the United States in a very eloquent and articulate way, as compared to Trump’s reasoning and mannerisms during his speeches. Clinton also criticizes Trump, but she does so in a way that is very professional and still put together.
In response to Katie’s post, I agree completely with what she said. Katie wrote that Clinton delivered her speech in a powerful way for her to share all of her goals, and in my mind, this is very true. Clinton, as an actual part of history now, uses this position to urge her followers and viewers to band together and progress America in the best way possible. Katie also wrote that Clinton was very persuasive in her speech because she was sharing her ideas for a better nation, and this I agree with as well. Clinton describes her ideal visions- a nation with no limits where people will build a stronger future together. This ties in all of her supporters and makes them feel more on a personal level with her and more inclined to continue supporting her. Overall, my preconceived notions of Clinton were confirmed by the speech that I watched, and I agree with Katie’s analysis of the speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN6KBbug9gA
Prior to watching Hillary Clinton's speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, I had mixed feelings about Hillary Clinton. While I think it is very clear that she is arguably one of the most qualified, if not over qualified, candidates to run in the presidential election, I do not agree with all of her policies, and her past mistakes that have been unveiled over the course of this election have been her downfall. After watching Clinton's speech, my opinion was changed only slightly. Clinton's speech did not seem overly persuasive in my opinion, simply because I feel like it seemed inline with former speeches she has given. I do have an increased respect for her enthusiasm towards to election and for her knowledge allowing her to know exactly how to speak to her audience. What I found particularly frustrating about this speech was how she focused on Donald Trump. While I am not a Trump supporter, I find that whenever a candidate spends a considerable amount of time in their campaign bashing another candidate, for me it tends to discredit them and lowers their moral reliability.
I agree with Sophie's analysis that Clinton's speaking style increases her persuasiveness. By seeming energetic and taking her time between phrases it allows the audience to stay engaged and gives them time to process the information she is staying. Clinton addresses the audience as if she truly cares about them. While I was not a huge fan of Clinton using her time to address Trump, I was impressed by how truthful her speech was in comparison to the Trump speech I analyzed.
Before viewing Hillary Clinton's MSNBC speech about women's rights, I saw Clinton as a politically aware, knowledgeable candidate who although had some issues with the law in the past, would still be the best choice for president. After watching the clip, I am more confident with my perception of Clinton and what she is able to do for our nation. Her main point of the entire speech was that "human rights have to be the center of who we are as a nation," inclusive of all races, genders, and sexualities. It is evident in our country today that minorities are continuing to face unjust discrimination for who they are, and through Clinton, I believe the country will soon be on its way to becoming more and more progressive.
I agree with Lauren's overall analysis of the speech, finding it equally persuasive and impressive. Clinton was indeed straight to the point of what her goals as president are, and did not sugarcoat or avoid any of the questions asked in order to appeal to voters. She speaks very confidently and passionately to the crowd, and these things show that Clinton is persistent and driven to carry out her vision to lead the country to greatness in November 2016.
When this campaign began I liked Sanders but after the primaries I do support Clinton. Not just because she is not Trump (this is a factor though) but because I feel she has the experience necessary to do the job. Before going into this speech I held the belief that Clinton was an intelligent and experienced politician and leader, but she has had hawkish tendencies in the past. After watching the speech my opinions of Clinton were reinforced. I found her to be a gifted orator who spoke intelligently and was prepared with facts to back up her assertions. She spoke on Trump not being qualified for the office and referenced to several of the things he has said in the past. Statements like when he said that many Mexicans were rapists and murders or when he said that America was a third world country. These statements reinforced my belief that Trump is not qualified to be president. Also, I did find Clinton's speech to be somewhat hawkish. My notion of Hillary Clinton was not really changed by this speech mostly because I have heard her speak before and have developed my opinion of her off of her speeches.
I do not entirely agree with Nathan Noma's post about this speech. Nathan says that she changed the wording of Trump's quotes to make them unfavorable. Trump throughout this campaign has said things, than taken them back, or claimed they were a joke and people are misinterpreting him. That's the point of Clinton's speech is to show all these crazy statements that Trump has made and that a President cannot make wild claims like Trump does. People take what the President says seriously. Most people at this point do not take Trump seriously. He also says that he hoped that Clinton would talk more about policy and less about Trump. However, for me after watching a Trump speech Clinton the difference was astonishing. Clinton talked infinitely more about policy than Trump did because Trump barely mentions any policy plans he has and he spends a lot of time just attacking Clinton. Now this does not mean Hillary that it is ok for Clinton to just attack Trump but I think that Trumps qualifications are an important part of why Clinton's policies are better than Trump's and showing that he would be incompetent shows that Clinton does have the superior policies.
I watched the Hillary Clinton speech on gun control. Before watching this I didn’t really like her that much. I don’t like her because of how she acts and how she never really takes responsibility for her actions. After watching this my opinion of her hasn’t changed at all. I still don’t really like her because of how she acts and I get a vibe from her that she thinks that she is all that and always correct. The speech didn’t really change my opinion of her because she never really addresses my issues of her with her lying and not coming forward with the truth. One of the main things that I did like about this speech and I thought that she did a good job with was she always stayed directly on message which I think she does a good job with a lot of her speeches. This is important to me because a lot of politics is making yourself look good by avoiding parts of the questions that might make you look bad. This may be partially because the questions that she was asked couldn’t really affect her in a bad way, and her stance on this subject was already clear. I disagree with the student before who said that she spoke with such brilliance and passion. I didn’t see the passion in her voice, to me she felt fairly monotone and spoke mostly to get voters, not because of her passion about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX72xheC630
I read a speech by the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. Before this speech I did not have a very good opinion of Clinton. My thoughts were definitely effected by all of her scandals including here emails, and her usurpation of the Democratic candidacy with the help of the DNC. These scandals caused me to think of Clinton as distrustful and ill-equipped to be a US president.After the speech my opinion hasn't changed at all. It doesn't seem like Clinton has a good plan to face the issues that America faces, including immigration. In her speech she never gives any concrete ideas to solve this situation for the betterment of both American's, as well as the immigrants that come into this country. She says that we need to greet immigrants with open arms and respect their rights, this statement leads me to believe that while she is president our borders will be overflowing, and she won't be strong enough to control it.
I choose this week for my blogpost to react to Lauren Rosenberg's blog post, and her speech she saw on Hillary Clinton, the democratic candidate. Clinton for this speech is in a small room with a small audience. This was back in February 19, 2016, and due to onscreen fonts, it looks like this was from part of an audience question and answer session with Bernie Sanders. Before I watched Clinton's speech, I thought that she would be a better candidate than Trump. I believed that even though she is not perfect, I thought she could make a good leader if she came into power. After watching her speech, my opinion about her has not really changed. The way she answers the question of the lady in the speech shows her experience as a diplomat, and how she knows how to act in a debate, or a forum. Her answer itself, that Women's rights are human rights is also positive in my opinion, as my ideal president would treat everyone equal, and that was the way I perceived her. The one thing I did not like was the way she was very broad on how she will achieve these women and gay rights. She does not discuss a certain policy, only past experience, but even with that, her past experience in my opinion qualifies her to do well on the issue. I do agree with Laurens opinion, as Clinton does persuade the audience, and she does not try to be moderate with the audience. She actually answers the question, and like Lauren, I agree that she does not say many specific countries that she increased rights in, but overall I do agree that her speech was pretty factual like Lauren said, but it needed a few more specific points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXU5wGX3yUs
I viewed Hilary Clinton's "Stronger Together" speech given on September 21st. She gave this speech in front of a large audience in Orlando, Florida. Her main focus was addressing human rights, supporting the disabled, and ending police brutality to win over the majority of people in the area. According to Policy Mic.com around 11% of elderly citizens of Florida are disabled, supporting these people is definitely a smart move on Clinton's part. In response to Willa Countryman I believe Clinton's stance on gun abusing and police brutality is a stance I hold as well. However Clinton is not a candidate that I would support, probably never would. I do not believe that she is personally passionate about these issues, however is in it for the votes to get a seat of high power. Her election is going wonderfully however her chances of winning seem to be declining by the day.
https://mic.com/articles/154807/hillary-clinton-s-speech-on-disabilities-showcased-her-stark-divide-with-donald-trump#.6RNGlpUxj
I watched Hillary Clinton’s speech in Brooklyn, New York in which she addresses the fact that she will probably be the first woman presidential nominee from a major U.S. political party. Before watching the speech, I had mixed opinions on Clinton. I know that having a woman in the White House would be a very important milestone for our country, but I was not very informed on her policy. I knew that she was for women’s rights and that she was against the TPP, but not much else about her views. I also knew that she had a few scandals, but not any details about them.
In the speech, she called for unity among democrats, which makes a lot of sense. My opinion of Clinton changed only slightly during the speech. She did well at relating to the people and brought up topics that resonate closely with me, such as women’s rights and ending inequality. I agree more with Clinton after watching this speech.
I do agree with Ingrid in what she said about the speech. She talked about how the speech did seem persuasive and that Clinton was trying to be more relatable but contradicted her own point when she was dragging Trump as she was talking about lifting everybody up.
Like many, at the beginning of this election process I was an avid supporter of Bernie Sanders. Seeing as that didn't work out, I made the decision to side with Clinton in hopes of some of Sanders campaign ideas surviving through her. I reflected on Sophie Gleason's post and Hillary Clinton's speech at Johnson C. Smith in Charlotte, North Carolina. In this speech Clinton directed her attention to the college students who would ultimately being voting for or against her. She spoke of affordable college and issues that they find important to today's society. I agree with Sophie's analysis of this speech. She references Clinton's verbal style and how it influenced the crowd and her persuasiveness. I also agree with Sophie about the personal appeal. I am also a woman working a job that is just barely minimum wage and am consistently fearing the future and its economic ambiguity. This means the relevancy of the speech for me was pretty strong. My views of Clinton did not necessarily change due to the fact that I was supporting her beforehand, but it did solidify preconceived notions that I had.
Speech:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?414955-1/hillary-clinton-campaigns-charlotte-north-carolina
I watched Hillary Clinton's speech that she gave in Warren, Michigan about her economic plan. Prior to watching the speech, I thought that she had a pretty good economic plan (I especially liked the "free college" part). After watching the speech, my opinion of her was much better than it was before. Many of her ideas and policies make a lot of sense economically, things like creating new jobs via renovating American infrastructure, raising minimum wage, and providing internet access to every home in america. I disagree with what Pierce said, I found the speech fairly persuading. There were a few things that she talked about that had trouble holding my interest, mainly because they didn't apply to me and never would, but for the most part the speech had a sizable impact on my opinion of her.
Response to Hayley Dickinson
Before watching the speech, my opinion of Donald Trump was that he was a bigoted racist with little actual plans for the presidency. Afterwards, I realized that he does have some concrete plans based on his racism, which is scary. Alongside this, I realized he is more racist and bigoted than I thought. In a way, this challenged my earlier notion, but not in the way Trump likely would have wanted from giving a speech. I agree with what my classmate said about the speech, especially how she analyzed how well Trump's diction pushes viewers to sympathize with or support Trump. This tactic likely is what has helped him gain numerous supporters.
Before watching her speech in San Diego about national security, I had not really followed Hillary Clinton, nor Donald Trump very closely in the presidential race. The only light I had seen them in was through social media about what they have done wrong. So before watching Hillary Clinton’s speech on national security, I saw her as someone who relies more on saying negative things about Donald Trump than focusing on getting the trust of the majority of the nation back after her email troubles. I never knew any real outlines of what she plans to do with her presidency if she should win. After watching Clinton’s speech, I did have a better understanding of her ideas about national security. Although I now I have a better understanding of her national security beliefs, a majority of her speech was devoted to bashing Donald Trump. I am not saying she doesn't have a right do so because Trump has said some pretty outrageous things but I feel it would better her campaign if she focused on herself more than what is going on with Donald Trump, the media is already doing a good job of pointing out his words. I read what Nathan said about the speech Hillary Clinton gave in San Diego and overall I do agree with what he has to say.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home