Maybe she’s not usually like this. Maybe she’s been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness.
Pathos appeal - sympathy for others and their potential circumstances.
The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.
Final wrap up of his message. Kind of like reiterating a thesis in a conclusion paragraph while wrapping in the rest of the essay.
The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the centre of all creation
Metaphor - skull-sized kingdoms = our own brains
It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out. Which means yet another grand cliché turns out to be true: your education really IS the job of a lifetime. And it commences: now.
Circles back to the same idea in the beginning of his speech where he deems cliches to be true to end. Strong finish with "It commences: now" - very authoritative.
Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness. Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.
Anaphora - worship. Repetition of same type of sentence communicates the breadth of things out there he deems dangerous to worship.
By way of example
Realism - This entire paragraph is very descriptive and lays out a detailed scene with which the audience can connect. The length of it and his use of "and" instead of punctuation in many places mirrors what those long awful boring days/months/years feel like.
is fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line
This comes off as extremely offensive and obnoxious on his part. He's contradicting himself by trying to humanize someone he just called "fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up". I get the juxtaposition between referring to her that way because that's what someone's initial thought might be and what he says after being how you can adjust your thinking, but its not a very palatable way to do it. Referring to someone's weight is in bad taste no matter what, but then again, it was 2005 and that kind of thing was common.
It takes will and effort, and if you are like me, some days you won’t be able to do it, or you just flat out won’t want to.
Ethos - he makes the effort but he, just like everyone else, is human and struggles. Relatable and likable.
In this traffic, all these vehicles stopped and idling in my way, it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive. Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he’s in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in HIS way. Or I can choose to force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the supermarket’s checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that some of these people probably have harder, more tedious and painful lives than I do.
Providing real life examples to apply the different type of thinking he's proposing. Giving the audience something more tangible and less conceptual.
I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV’s and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, 40-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper-stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest [responding here to loud applause] — this is an example of how NOT to think, though — most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers. And I can think about how our children’s children will despise us for wasting all the future’s fuel, and probably screwing up the climate, and how spoiled and stupid and selfish and disgusting we all are, and how modern consumer society just sucks, and so forth and so on.
Using humor again to entertain the audience while also pushing through his point.
The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in. Because the traffic jams and crowded aisles and long checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don’t make a conscious decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I’m gonna be pissed and miserable every time I have to shop. Because my natural default setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about me. About MY hungriness and MY fatigue and MY desire to just get home, and it’s going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way. And who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line. And look at how deeply and personally unfair this is.
Connecting the situation he laid out to his message and how it can help with this inevitable life of monotony he has created that everyone is going to have and take no pleasure in because going to the store is just the WORST and everyone hates every part of their boring days. (and that there is sarcasm)
ur creepy, flimsy, plastic bags of groceries in your cart with the one crazy wheel that pulls maddeningly to the left, all the way out through the crowded, bumpy, littery parking lot, and then you have to drive all the way home through slow, heavy, SUV-intensive, rush-hour traffic
More imagery
like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense. Let’s get concrete. The plain fact is that you graduating seniors do not yet have any clue what “day in day out” really means
Admits that his wording sounded hyperbolic, but then slightly patronizes the audience by claiming they have no idea what day in and day out means. He's making an assumption that every student graduating went to college at 18 and never had a 9-5 or had to go through monotonous months/years.
: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out.
Imagery, hyperbole, and kind of appealing to fear. Referring to a standard adult life of someone who didn't go to liberal arts school and listen to this speech as "dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out" is a faulty analogy and very pretentious.
It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head.
Major shock value. Also, if this speech were given today, I don't think this portion would be received very well. The kairos appeal would not be there.
learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed.
Outright explanation of the concept he's been building and a very blunt assertion of what not following his advice could do to the audience members as they move forward with their lives.
Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education–least in my own case–is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualise stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.
Continuing to refer to himself, especially when he discusses shortcomings or struggles, so that his message is communicated and shared, but not shoved down the audience's throat. It would be difficult to expect a positive reception if he were to say many of these things directly to the audience without connecting it to himself.
YOU
Epistrophe- Continued emphasis on "you" to drive home his point that no matter what we do, we are the center of our own worlds by default. Everything we experience is relative to our own existence.
It’s a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self.
Giving power to the audience to make their own decisions. he specifically points out that he isn't there to lecture them which shows that he isn't talking down to them, but he is still communicating his own experiences in order to help them. By using "MY natural, har-wired default" he is keeping the focus on himself. Implying that he has done and is doing the work to alter his self-centered default setting is an ethos appeal.
Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded
Irony - the things he's most certain of are the things that end up being incorrect.
To be just a little less arrogant. To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties.
Theme - less arrogance, more humility and openness.
arrogance
Strong diction here and later on where it says repulsive. He is making it very clear with his tone that this type of attitude is not something he views as respectable
except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from.
Stasis question: This is how we're trained to think, and it has its benefits, but how can it also be detrimental?
God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer.
He uses humor to keep the audience engaged and provide imagery and immersion into the story. He communicates his message by being very detailed
If you’re like me as a student, you’ve never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think.
Building on his own perspective and connecting it to that of his audience members.
This is a standard requirement of US commencement speeches, the deployment of didactic little parable-ish stories.
Here, he does something akin to actors breaking the fourth wall by specifically addressing his audience about the concept of what he is doing there while speaking to them.
The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.
The fish story is now clearly seen as an allegory and it seems he is setting a base for the theme of his speech.
less bullshitty conventions of the genre, but if you’re worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don’t be. I am not the wise old fish.
His colloquial language lightens the mood of his audience while he passively judges the conventions of US commencement speeches by referring to stories as one of the "less bullshitty" ones. He builds authority by coming off as relatable and specifically distancing himself from the idea of the "wise old fish".
“Greetings parents and congratulations to Kenyon’s graduating class of 2005.
His actual greeting is incredibly quick and he abruptly jumps into the story about fish, grabbing the attention of the audience.
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is—it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.
Uses the example of his son's ability with computers to point out how easy it is to participate in cyber attacks and that it might not even be possible to defend against them - possibly to cover up for not having a clear plan.
Look, here’s the story. I want to make America great again. I’m going to be able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary will. The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her.
Concedes that he will accept the results of the election after skirting the question before but making sure he makes his point about her being unable to lead again
Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But I certainly will support the outcome of this election. And I know Donald’s trying very hard to plant doubts about it, but I hope the people out there understand: This election’s really up to you. It’s not about us so much as it is about you and your families and the kind of country and future you want. So I sure hope you will get out and vote as though your future depended on it, because I think it does.
Credibility and appealing to the audience by saying she respects their choices. Also putting responsibility on them and implying that she hopes they make the right decision which she believes is her based on the argument she has made.
ou know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said… TRUMP: I never said that. CLINTON: …. women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men. TRUMP: I didn’t say that. CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then he called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.
Giving examples of his sexism which he just used on her as proof that he has a lack of respect for women.
The world—let me tell you. Let me tell you. Hillary has experience, but it’s bad experience. We have made so many bad deals during the last—so she’s got experience, that I agree.
Concedes that she has experience but turns it around and says it's all bad experience. ethos to show he can admit the truth, but the truth really proves his point.
She doesn’t have the look. She doesn’t have the stamina. I said she doesn’t have the stamina. And I don’t believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.
another ad hominem attack now bringing up her looks as well.
And she doesn’t say that, because she’s got no business ability. We need heart. We need a lot of things. But you have to have some basic ability. And sadly, she doesn’t have that. All of the things that she’s talking about could have been taken care of during the last 10 years, let’s say, while she had great power. But they weren’t taken care of. And if she ever wins this race, they won’t be taken care of.
Discrediting and ad hominem attack about her leadership abilities.
And it’s a big problem. And as far as Japan is concerned, I want to help all of our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars. We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world… HOLT: We have just… TRUMP: … where they’re not paying us what we need.
Reiterating his focus on money and the economy even when in relation to foreign threats and dangers. He wants to work with other countries, but not at the detriment of our country. We can't be responsible for everyone else without getting something in return. Appeals to people who think we're being taken advantage of which could relate personally to real life if someone has been taken advantage of. It's a very basic thing to understand in a complicated subject that people might not have a lot of knowledge about. A subtl analogy/metaphor
It’s also important that we look at the entire global situation. There’s no doubt that we have other problems with Iran. But personally, I’d rather deal with the other problems having put that lid on their nuclear program than still to be facing that.
Ethos - she will put our safety above everything else. Promising to protect the country
Well, let me—let me start by saying, words matter. Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.
Points out that she will try to work together with other countries rather than causing rifts that could end up backfiring and causing repercussions for our country. Brings up how much words matter as president insinuating that her opponent's rhetoric is not beneficial
And when asked to Secretary Kerry, why didn’t you do that? Why didn’t you add other things into the deal? One of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including $400 million in cash. Nobody’s ever seen that before. That turned out to be wrong. It was actually $1.7 billion in cash, obviously, I guess for the hostages. It certainly looks that way.
Again bringing up other democrats in order to discredit the whole party which in turn discredits his opponent.
At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we’re doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.
Showing that he is willing to hold other countries accountable and insist on help for his own country in order to protect us from having to do everything on our own. Showing that he is open to different options.
Well, I have to say that, you know, for what Secretary Clinton was saying about nuclear with Russia, she’s very cavalier in the way she talks about various countries.
Calling his opponent cavalier to discredit her judgement in response to her commenting on his judgement.
The other day, I saw Donald saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I’d blow them out of the water and start another war. That’s not good judgment.
Ethos - taking away credibility by referencing a previous comment that shows bad judgement and aggressive or dangerous behavior.
With respect to Iran, when I became secretary of state, Iran was weeks away from having enough nuclear material to form a bomb. They had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle under the Bush administration. They had built covert facilities. They had stocked them with centrifuges that were whirling away.
Ethos- "with respect to Iran" so as not to be offensive
Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There’s no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know?
Ad hominem attack about his opponent's temperament.
y question is, since you supported it… TRUMP: Just—would you like to hear… HOLT: … why is your—why is your judgment… TRUMP: Wait a minute. I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out. HOLT: The record shows otherwise, but why—why was… TRUMP: The record does not show that. HOLT: Why was—is your judgment any…
Pushing very aggressively to say what he wants - tone, style, and presence.
That is a mainstream media nonsense put out by her, because she—frankly, I think the best person in her campaign is mainstream media.
Discrediting "mainstream media". Trying to invalidate those who disagree with him without evidence.
And about four months ago, I read on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that NATO is opening up a major terror division. And I think that’s great. And I think we should get—because we pay approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO. It’s a lot of money to protect other people. But I’m all for NATO. But I said they have to focus on terror, also.
Logos - referencing a credible news source.
that’s another beauty
sarcasm
And I think we’ve got to have an intelligence surge, where we are looking for every scrap of information. I was so proud of law enforcement in New York, in Minnesota, in New Jersey. You know, they responded so quickly, so professionally to the attacks that occurred by Rahami. And they brought him down. And we may find out more information because he is still alive, which may prove to be an intelligence benefit.
Paying respect to law enforcement for acting quickly and protecting the people - appealing to that audience and supporters of law enforcement.
TRUMP: Wrong. CLINTON: That is absolutely proved over and over again. TRUMP: Wrong. Wrong.
Same tone and style of trying to shut down anything his opponent says that he doesn't agree with by interjecting and just saying "no" or "wrong".
Well, I hope the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard. Donald supported the invasion of Iraq.
Pointing out lack of truth in his statements. She brings up fact checkers a lot and referenced her website where millions of people are fact checking in real time to provide correct information.
Well, first I have to say one thing, very important. Secretary Clinton is talking about taking out ISIS. “We will take out ISIS.” Well, President Obama and Secretary Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq, because they got out—what, they shouldn’t have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster. And ISIS was formed.
Blaming the formation of ISIS on the actions of Obama and his opponent.
We’re making progress. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we’re hoping that within the year we’ll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria.
Pointing out that they are already moving in the right direction and have a plan for continuing that progress.
But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. That’s what we learned.
Defending someone in the other party to make his opponent look bad and make himself look good because it implies he's willing to defend someone even if they aren't on his side just because it's the right thing to do.
I do want to say that I was just endorsed—and more are coming next week—it will be over 200 admirals, many of them here—admirals and generals endorsed me to lead this country. That just happened, and many more are coming. And I’m very proud of it.
Ethos and logos - defending himself by bringing up 200 admirals and generals who have endorsed him in comparison to the 50 officials against him that his opponent brought up.
t’s one of the reasons why 50 national security officials who served in Republican information—in administrations… HOLT: Your two minutes have expired. CLINTON: … have said that Donald is unfit to be the commander- in-chief. It’s comments like that that really worry people who understand the threats that we face.
Logos and ethos - 50 nat'l security officers agree that he is unfit.
I know Donald’s very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really… [crosstalk] …tough, long game here. And one of the things he’s done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee.
Connecting opponent to an enemy of the US to discredit him
In Palm Beach, Florida, tough community, a brilliant community, a wealthy community, probably the wealthiest community there is in the world, I opened a club, and really got great credit for it. No discrimination against African-Americans, against Muslims, against anybody.
Builds his credibility by pointing out that one of his business didn't discriminate.
And, you know, I also notice the very nasty commercials that you do on me in so many different ways, which I don’t do on you.
Ad hominem. Not calling her nasty outright, but implying that she is because the commercials she put out were.
Now, as far as the lawsuit, yes, when I was very young, I went into my father’s company, had a real estate company in Brooklyn and Queens, and we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country—it was a federal lawsuit—were sued. We settled the suit with zero—with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do. But they sued many people.
Excuses the situation by pointing out that there was no admission of guilt. Also makes sure that he mentions he was young, subtly implies he can't be held accountable because of his age.
But, remember, Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy. He actually was sued twice by the Justice Department. So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior. And the birther lie was a very hurtful one. You know, Barack Obama is a man of great dignity. And I could tell how much it bothered him and annoyed him that this was being touted and used against him.
Points out opponent's hypocrisy and personal engagement in racist behavior. Discredits his claim of having a good relationship with the African American community.
But it can’t be dismissed that easily. He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted, he persisted year after year, because some of his supporters, people that he was trying to bring into his fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it.
Bringing attention back to the facts that her opponent did not address and relates them back to his start in politics in order to undermine his entire journey and therefore his current standing.
Well, nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it. I figured you’d ask the question tonight, of course. But nobody was caring much about it. But I was the one that got him to produce the birth certificate. And I think I did a good job.
Questioned about why he persisted after Obama produced his birth certificate but skirts the question and points out that he's the one who got him to produce it. Turns it into a success for himself.
I will. Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election, they said, see ya later, I’ll see you in four years. The African-American community—because—look, the community within the inner cities has been so badly treated. They’ve been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrat politicians, because that’s what it is. They’ve controlled these communities for up to 100 years.
Appealing to the African-American community by sympathizing with them and pointing out that they have been mistreated, but specifically by democrats. Places the blame on his opponent's party again.
think maybe there’s a political reason why you can’t say it, but I really don’t believe—in New York City, stop-and-frisk, we had 2,200 murders, and stop-and-frisk brought it down to 500 murders. Five hundred murders is a lot of murders. It’s hard to believe, 500 is like supposed to be good? But we went from 2,200 to 500. And it was continued on by Mayor Bloomberg. And it was terminated by current mayor. But stop-and-frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City. Tremendous beyond belief. So when you say it has no impact, it really did. It had a very, very big impact.
Logos - statistics of the decline in murders with stop and frisk being enacted.
I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the words super-predator about young black youth. And that’s a term that I think was a—it’s—it’s been horribly met, as you know. I think you’ve apologized for it. But I think it was a terrible thing to say.
Pointing out hypocrisy of his opponent
These are very, very good people, and they’re protecting the Second Amendment.
Nostalgia in relation to the constitution and the fundamentals of the country.
Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other. And therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, you know, why am I feeling this way?
Admits to implicit bias but in a roundabout way that encompasses all people so as not to push aside her other audience of non-minorities.
And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now—and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby—right now, we’ve got too many military-style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm
Proposing part of the solution and taking her opponent's credibility away by pointing out that he is in support of the opposite idea.
Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it’s just a fact that if you’re a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated.
Appealing to the minority audience by admitting there is a disparity in treatment which has not always been discussed.
Now, I believe in community policing. And, in fact, violent crime is one-half of what it was in 1991. Property crime is down 40 percent. We just don’t want to see it creep back up. We’ve had 25 years of very good cooperation.
Logos - statistics to prove that progress has been made and the situation isn't as dire as it's being made out to be
You know, the vibrancy of the black church, the black businesses that employ so many people, the opportunities that so many families are working to provide for their kids. There’s a lot that we should be proud of and we should be supporting and lifting up.
Ethos and pathos - building credibility by bringing up the good things and showing respect for the benefits black communities and business contribute.
Well, I’ve heard—I’ve heard Donald say this at his rallies, and it’s really unfortunate that he paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country.
Flipping his argument into something negative. The extremity of his statements and being so aggressive with them backfired because he is focusing on these statistics and negative aspects and making them define all of these minority communities.
But we need—Lester, we need law and order. And we need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what’s happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it’s very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen.
Blaming current politicians which supports the platform he's running on which is that he is not a typical politician and he'll do everything different than they have.
t’s terrible. I have property there. It’s terrible what’s going on in Chicago
Again building credibility because he has a connection to the place he's discussing.
We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they’re illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns.
Blaming gang violence on undocumented immigrants with no evidence provided. This helps his current point and also provides support for his feelings about immigrants. Appeals to fear found all throughout this part of his argument
almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over—
Bringing up Obama to shift blame and relate the statistics back to the democratic party which is his opponent's party.
You walk down the street, you get shot.
Hasty generalization - because there are high rates of shootings, you will get shot if you walk down the street. Also appeal to fear.
I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just—just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very—I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States.
Ethos - credibility because he is supported by many police groups
And when I look at what’s going on in Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I have investments,
Pathos - referencing his own feelings for Charlotte and his connection through business to build his credibility and prove that his opinion is influenced by the right reasons.
We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them
Again making sure she appeals to both audiences
The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African- American men, more than the next nine causes put together
Logos - statistics on gun epidemic's effect on the death of young African American men as compared to the 9 next leading causes put together as a whole.
So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform.
Ethos - she has believed in this and stuck by it for her whole campaign which implies that she'll stick by it in office as well.
And we’ve got to do several things at the same time. We have to restore trust between communities and the police.
Appealing to two very different audiences by suggesting coming together. There are those who have an issue with the way police behave but there are also many who support the police and she has to balance in between them so as not to turn off one side.
The Trump International is way under budget and way ahead of schedule. And we should be able to do that for our country.
Again pointing out a success in business that he says will translate to the success of the country under his presidency.
Now, if you want to change the laws, you’ve been there a long time, change the laws. But I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I’m running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that’s what I do.
Blaming the laws for providing the opportunity for him to take advantage of them.
Look, it’s all words, it’s all sound bites.
Discrediting what she says by claiming it's false but with no evidence to back it up. Claiming that everything she says isn't true to invalidate anything she says say against him.
Well, sometimes there’s not a direct transfer of skills from business to government, but sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government.
Discrediting how he equivocates his success in business to his potential success as president
I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you. He provided a good middle-class life for us, but the people he worked for, he expected the bargain to be kept on both sides.
Pathos appeal - bringing up her father who has passed away and referencing his achievements and hard work
Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work…
Trying to discredit the man who was wronged by him so that the blame is shifted. Ad hominem
And, indeed, I have met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Donald. I’ve met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers, like my dad was, who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do. We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It’s a beautiful facility. It immediately was put to use. And you wouldn’t pay what the man needed to be paid, what he was charging you to do…
Referencing people who have been wronged by her opponent as proof of his lack of responsibility and respect for other. Ethos appeal. Specifically having someone in the audience that experienced it gives more weight to the claim and makes it seem more truthful.
And maybe because you haven’t paid any federal income tax for a lot of years.
Bringing up his lack of tax payment again to make him look like an untrustworthy cheater
Our airports are like from a third world country.
Appeal to fear - equating something in America to a third-world country is a scary proposal. Appeals to xenophobia and ignorance about other countries.
I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocios way. It’s because it’s about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money.
More of his style with "great company" "tremendous income" and using that as an way to build his ethos. He's good at business therefore he would be good at being president.
That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK? That was not a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they’re not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it’s—really thinks it’s disgraceful, also.
Repetition and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. They're taking the 5th therefore something else is going on and what you did was disgraceful.
I do. You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail.
ethos - admitting a mistake and taking responsibility. not excusing her mistake
That makes me smart.
Faulty analogy - I did a bad thing and that makes me smart.
So you’ve got to ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be.
Stasis question and gives possible answers that paint her opponent in a bad light. Switching the untrustworthy idea back to him.
Well, I think you’ve just seen another example of bait-and- switch here.
Points out his pivot
I will release my tax returns. And that’s against—my lawyers, they say, “Don’t do it.” I will tell you this. No—in fact, watching shows, they’re reading the papers. Almost every lawyer says, you don’t release your returns until the audit’s complete. When the audit’s complete, I’ll do it. But I would go against them if she releases her e-mails.
Shifting the blame of not releasing the tax returns to his lawyers. Then builds his credibility by saying he will go against legal advice if it means the people will get to see the emails they want to see.
I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. I will release my tax returns—against my lawyer’s wishes—when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release.
Pivots again to point the light at his opponent by bringing up a very negative situation that a lot of people are unhappy with. Changes his stance to "when she releases her emails then I'll release my taxes". Completely and effectively shifts the focus to her.
But you will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections, where I filed a 104-page essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have. It shows income—in fact, the income—I just looked today—the income is filed at $694 million for this past year, $694 million. If you would have told me I was going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been very surprised.
Pivoting from being called out for not filing his taxes- Made an excuse that he is under an audit and he will release them when it is over and switches to forms that will show how much money he makes.
We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble.
Extremely negative descriptive terms. Imagery
Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never going to happen.
Ad Hominem - typical politician who doesn't do anything. Also, using short stunted sentences. Very much his voice - he uses small words and small sentences to get his point across plainly and simply.
I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their—their debt from college at a lower rate. Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top.
Appealing to the majority of America who are not the most wealthy who will be the ones to vote her in or not.
You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things.
Ad Hominem - calling him crazy
And here’s the thing. Republicans and Democrats agree that this should be done, $2.5 trillion. I happen to think it’s double that. It’s probably $5 trillion that we can’t bring into our country, Lester.
Says that he believes a statistic is double what people agree it is with no evidence to back it up.
major jobs, because the wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies. They’re going to do a tremendous jo
major - tremendous - all part of the words he often uses to create his voice.
And look at her website. You know what? It’s no difference than this. She’s telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don’t think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much. HOLT: The next segment, we’re continuing… CLINTON: Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS. HOLT: … achieving prosperity… TRUMP: No, no, you’re telling the enemy everything you want to do.
Pivot to something that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand in an attempt to bring up something that takes away her credibility and authority. Saying that having information on her plan to fight ISIS is giving them all the information they need to get around it.
That can’t—that can’t be left to stand.
Implying that what he said is so wrong that it would be unfair for her to not be able to reply and correct it.
I’m going to cut regulations. I’m going to cut taxes big league, and you’re going to raise taxes big league, end of story.
Big league - slang and also example of his low style/very informal language
But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence.
Slippery slope - if you regulate the business you will regulate them out of existence.
And people have looked at both of our plans, have concluded that mine would create 10 million jobs and yours would lose us 3.5 million jobs, and explode the debt which would have a recession.
Again referencing "people" but not saying who. No evidence to back up the claim.
In fact, I have written a book about it. It’s called “Stronger Together.” You can pick it up tomorrow at a bookstore… TRUMP: That’s about all you’ve… [crosstalk] HOLT: Folks, we’re going to… CLINTON: … or at an airport near you.
This reference might have been an attempt to get people to find out more details about her policy, but personally, it seems like shameless self-promotion. She's using the national stage at a presidential debate to promote her book that she will make money off of.
CLINTON: … which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn’t. I wrote about that in my book… TRUMP: So is it President Obama’s fault? CLINTON: … before you even announced
Disproving his attempt at taking credit for her change of heart.
ell, Donald, I know you live in your own reality
Ad hominem attack on his ability to grasp reality.
And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
Trying to give himself credit for her change in opinion.
Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in…
Correcting statement made by her opponent to clarify details of how her decision came to be. Trying to build credibility by showing that she paid attention to all of the details and made a decision based on that.
When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent. So I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that helped to create more new jobs. HOLT: Very quickly… TRUMP: But you haven’t done it in 30 years or 26 years or any number you want to… CLINTON: Well, I’ve been a senator, Donald… TRUMP: You haven’t done it. You haven’t done it. CLINTON: And I have been a secretary of state… TRUMP: Excuse me. CLINTON: And I have done a lot… TRUMP: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry. CLINTON: Well, that’s your opinion. That is your opinion.
Clinton giving examples of her success and how that will be a benefit for her getting things done as President. Trump again brings up 30 years of her not having done what she says she will do in the future and they go back and forth arguing with him stating over and over "you haven't done it" while she chimes in with what positions she's had trying to say what she has done. Trump then calls NAFTA the worst thing to ever happen to the manufacturing industry, using a straw man fallacy saying that her husband signed it and it was horrible. That insinuates that she would make the same mistakes.
Yeah, for 30 years.
Brings up 30 years of experience again.
will bring—excuse me. I will bring back jobs. You can’t bring back jobs.
A completely false statement with no proof or evidence to back it up.
The Obama administration, from the time they’ve come in, is over 230 years’ worth of debt, and he’s topped it. He’s doubled it in a course of almost eight years, seven-and-a-half years, to be semi- exact.
Discrediting the previous administration which discredits his opponent because they are in the same party. Generalizing them and blaming others' shortcomings or failures on his opponent.
And, Hillary, I’d just ask you this. You’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you’ve been doing it, and now you’re just starting to think of solutions.
Bringing up the fact that his opponent has held positions in office for 30 years and hasn't fixed these problems. He brings up a lot of issues, mostly those that discredit his opponent, very often, sometimes when they aren't directly related to the question he was asked to keep chipping away at her credibillity.
I did not. I did not. I do not say that.
Repeating over and over as he interrupts is part of his presence. His style and voice are similar to a bulldozer. He pushes through what he needs to say no matter what it takes and he doesn't hold back in the way he says it. This could take away from his ethos, but people really connected with it because it was different from the status quo.
Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession.
Logos - experts have said her opponent's plan isn't feasible. But it's weak because she doesn't give examples of who they are or how they are experts.
Nine million people—nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.
Logos connected to the pathos appeal. When her opponent chimes in to say that what he said was just good business, she used statistics of how many people were negatively affected by what he just minimalized.
In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, “Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.” Well, it did collapse.
Ethos/pathos - taking away his credibility by showing his insensitivity to the housing crisis and willingness to take advantage of the plight of others.
Well, let’s stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.
Logos - brings up a specific example of how large tax cute (her opponent's policy) is what caused the Great Recession
Well, the first thing you do is don’t let the jobs leave.
Pivots and doesn't answer the specific question but focuses on another aspect of the subject.
Secretary Clinton and others, politicians, should have been doing this for years, not right now, because of the fact that we’ve created a movement.
Taking credit for the current interest by other politicians in these issues "we've created a movement". Also build authority
She’s been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn’t she made the agreements better? The NAFTA agreement is defective. Just because of the tax and many other reasons, but just because of the fact…
Discrediting his opponent by pointing out that she hasn't done anything she's discussing in the 30 years she's had to do it before now.
Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton—yes, is that OK? Good. I want you to be very happy.
Sarcasm to undermine and belittle his opponent.
Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We’re on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there’s a tax. When they sell in—automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there’s no tax. It’s a defective agreement. It’s been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven’t done anything about it.
Logos - giving a specific example of what he's trying to communicate.
Our country’s in deep trouble
Appeal to fear
Well, for one thing—and before we start on that—my father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world, and I say that only because that’s the kind of thinking that our country needs.
Ethos - Corrects his opponent's claim that he got more money in his loan to discredit her and then builds up his own authority by showing what he's done and relating his achievements to what he can do for the country.
That’s the kind of economy I want us to see again.
Nostalgia for those who remember good economic eras from the past.
I think we come at it from somewhat different perspectives. I understand that. You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that’s all to his benefit. He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be and that everything will work out from there.
Ethos appeal - shows that she can see there are two sides of the argument but goes on to discredit her opponent by showing his history with being wealthy - implying he doesn't understand those who weren't given loans by their rich fathers. She then goes on to discuss how her father was a small-business man and she understands the struggles of the middle class more. Also showing respect to those who had the same experience by saying it's hard work.
trumped-up trickle-down
Trumped-up trickle down - brings up trickle-down economics which many people are wary of given its history and adds in trumped-up which is a play on words using her opponents name as well as implying falsehood.
Of course, we are 5 percent of the world’s population; we have to trade with the other 95 percent. And we need to have smart, fair trade deals.
Logos appeal - using statistics to set up her argument that we must have smart, fair trade deals. Implying that we need these since we are too small to not work together with other countries - it's in our best interest.
we have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs.
Putting the blame on other countries - saying that they're stealing companies and jobs even though it's the companies that make the choice to leave. Appeal to ignorance by saying we're losing jobs, therefore it must be the fault of these other countries where the companies are moving.
That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan.
Relating himself to a well-liked president to build authority.
But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us.
Appeal to fear - "stolen" has a negative connotation that scares the audience into thinking they're being robbed. It isn't a very accurate description of what is actually happening.
s far as child care is concerned and so many other things, I think Hillary and I agree on that.
Appeal to ethos - showing he can agree with his opponent when it is valid. He isn't just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
, a friend of mine who
Appeal to false authority - cites a 'friend' with no name or verifiable credentials to prove they know what they're talking about. It's complete hearsay.
I’ve heard from so many of you about the difficult choices you face and the stresses that you’re under.
Appeal to pathos - bringing up the struggles to which so many people in her audience can relate. Shows that she is empathetic as well.
there’s nobody in our government to fight them
Distancing himself from current politicians to set up for future argument that he will be able to fix the problems that they've failed to fix.
You have to judge us, who can shoulder the immense, awesome responsibilities of the presidency, who can put into action the plans that will make your life better. I hope that I will be able to earn your vote on November 8th
Setting up the criteria for who would be a good president in a way that would make her the obvious choice. Subtly implying that Trump isn't qualified. Also shows that she is humble by saying she hopes she will EARN the vote.
Well, thank you, Lester, and thanks to Hofstra for hosting us.
Showing she is respectful and appreciative. Ethos appeal
How are we going to do it?
Additional stasis question.
If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.
Speaking directly to the audience to connect with them (she does this often). I want YOU to benefit from what I'm proposing. This is for YOU.
First, we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. That means we need new jobs, good jobs, with rising incomes. I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business. We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women’s work.
Secondary stasis questions implied - what does it take to achieve what she brought up before?
The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we’ll build together.
Stasis question to build authority and appeal to the audience by narrowing down and centering the subject around them. Gets her to the "common form that best suits [her] argument and audience". (from TAH)