I read the passage about President Trump's inaugural address. The author wrote that "there's little [Donald Trump] can do given that most manufacturing jobs have already been outsourced or automated away," (Cooper). This intrigued me, because it seemed to be a main point of his argument. I think it would be really disappointing to find out that our new President couldn't actually create the jobs he claimed he could.
I also read the positive review of the address. One thing that interested me in this article was when the author talked about America's importance in the world, saying that "America ... colors the character of the world," (Poulos). I really enjoyed his wording, but I found the fifth paragraph lacking in it's review of President Trump's inaugural address, which was disappointing; I wished to hear more about the address and less fluff.
I read both articles. In the positive reviews the author said, "Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods... these are just reasonable demands for righteous people and a righteous public... the first step to making America great again is to reorient commerce and its instruments" (Poulos). I found this interesting. He used one of Trump's quotes to strengthen his argument on how Trump's inauguration was amazing.
On the other hand, Cooper says, "'we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people'... it's a noble sentiment-- and an open fraud." His article is going against the other author because he seems to see Trump as a Fraud. They take similar quotes from Trump's inauguration and use them to their benefit.
In the first speech "Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" I saw something interesting. Trump said that "money and science must forever be servants, not masters" (Poulos). I am not sure what he exactly means by this, but I can infer that he has plans to change taxes, or anything with money. Money is something everyone wants, and seems to need to have. It seems that he believes it controls us. Yes, money is a necessity. I can agree that money does seem to "control" us. Everything you might possibly want or need involves some type of currency. Money is both a master, and a servant I believe. It has control over us, being a master. It serves us, by being available to us, but not always in the greatest amount. I don't think you can change it. Today, you need money for everything. In the opposing speech, Trump has plans to cut off a large percentage of health insurance. That is a huge effect on our country. Almost everyone in our country has some type of health insurance. It's a necessity for those who can't work, or who are disabled in some way. With lack of insurance, so many people will lose the free availability to doctors for their needs. The only good part about this is that the taxes that pay for insurance, taken from the higher class, will only reduce the amount on taxes for them. That doesn't seem to be fair. Thousands of people get to die without insurance, while the higher class gets to sit in the now larger piles of money that they already had enough of? I do not see the good in this plan.
When I watched the inaugural address, I thought that he made very good claims, so that people would want to listen more. I liked how he said that no matter what color we were we all had the same blood in our bodies. I also liked how he said that he would do whatever he could. I believe from what he said that he can do something because you can obviously see that he doesn't want to be the kind of president that doesn't do anything.
I think that both of the reactions bring up good points to the concern of what President Trump can do. In the one for Trump, they bring up what he says that can give us hope. They talk more about how he can help us and how he is good for our country. To contrast, the other reaction made it sound like President Trump was never going to do anything for us. Both of the reactions seemed biased to me because they both tried to prove their points, while neglecting the other sides reaction.
After watching Trump's Inaugural Address, I was impressed by Trump's professional attitude. While his speech did have many similarities to his campaign policies, he was very composed and more detailed about his plans.
The articles about the inauguration both had several valid points that I agree with. From the first article, I think it is true that "American people need more than the deliverance at the lowest, most primal level" (Poulos). Trump's inclusion of all people in his speech was inspiring to hear after the many threats during his campaign. However, on the reverse side, I am concerned about Trump's lack of preparation about ObamaCare's replacement. While "Congressional Republicans are preparing to repeal ObamaCare, [they] have no plans whatsoever to replace it with anything even halfway decent" (Cooper).
Personally, I enjoy the attitude of the first article better than the first. It seems less biased and more thought-out, even though I share similar opinions to those stated in the second article.
I read both articles. The first one, "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," spoke about how great Trump is. But something that stood out to me about this article is when the author called America a "cult of competition" (Poulos). This stood out to me because Americans tend to fight over money, and it is quite ironic to me for Americans to elect a very wealthy person for office when money is so valuable to the American people. The author even said that American people are people "for whom money and science must forever be servants, not masters" (Poulos). I see this as meaning that Americans are controllers of money and science. The American government can control how valuable money can be to American citizens, and what scientific facts are released to Americans.
In the second article, "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat," it talked about the bad things in what Trump said he is going to do. Something that really stood out to me about this article is that the author mentioned a lot more in-depth things about not only Trump's speech, but also what he said during his campaign. What really shocked me while reading this is when the author added in that "tens or perhaps thousands of people will be killed due to lack of insurance... so that stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less taxes" (Cooper). This is extremely unsettling. I did not know what Trump was planning to do with healthcare until I read this. In my final opinion, I am not impressed by Trump or any of his supporters. I would like to see, hear, or read more of actual stuff that Trump wants to happen. Not just him telling people what they want to hear, because that is what I feel his whole Inaugural Address was about.
After watching President Trump's inaugural address, I heard some things that I agree with and some that I am concerned about. First, I heard him talk about how the party of the president is not important as long as they do what they claimed they would. I agree with this because, to me, the whole "party" system seems like just another way to divide us up. In fact, some of the founding fathers also disliked the idea of a two-party government. On the other hand, there were parts of the address that concerned me. I heard him talk about how he is going to help give the power to the people and that "we will be forgotten no longer." While these things are very important to me, and while I hope he does follow through with this, I doubt that he will because of his actions so far. I will elaborate more on that later on. While reading the first article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," I noticed that, as expected, it was very biased and that it supported everything he has said and done. While it was biased, it still touched on important topics that President Trump covered in his address. For example, the article stated, "America's commercial elites exploited the people, shattering what has so long been the core of our identity" (Poulos). I completely agree with what the article says and with what President Trump said on the issue of the wealth of our middle class as compared to the rest of the world. I think that our middle and lower classes have been treated unfairly and that change is a necessity. However, I also think that Donald Trump is one of the last people we should have elected if that's a problem we ever wanted to solve. Once again, I will explain why I think that later on. On a final note, I think that the article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" addresses key issues, even though a tad bit biased, in a way that expresses a need for change, in which the author thinks that President Trump will bring forth. While reading the second article, "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address, Our President Is a Populist," I noticed that it is more biased than the first article, but covers a wider variety of the issues our country faces. For example, the article comments on wealth distribution, peoples' rights, and healthcare. What stood out to me the most in the article, which is also the most important thing to me concerning President Trump and our future, is his actions and how they may affect us. For example, the article says, "His Cabinet is filled with wealthy bankers and donors to the Republican Party. Every agency designed to protect citizens is going to be staffed with zealous partisans of the predatory businesses they are supposed to oversee" (Cooper). In my opinion, from what I have researched and seen about the people he is appointing, what he said in the address about giving the power back to the people and helping the middle class seems false. If he truly wanted to improve the condition of the middle and lower classes and give the power back to the people, he would not be literally giving the power to billionaires by appointing them to these positions and he would not be repealing things like ObamaCare, which benefit the same people he is trying to help. Despite the fact that I believe these things, I hope that I am incorrect and that he will improve the lives of the majority of the population that do not live luxurious lives by giving the power back to them and "making America great again."
In the first article, it talked about how Trump wants to help America get back where the people make the decisions and are happy. As "Americans [We] want great schools for [our] children, safe neighborhoods for [our] families, and good jobs for themselves" (Poulos) to have better lives. When he states that he is saying that most people want the best for themselves and their families and Trump wants to help do that.
In the second article, Trump said how he wanted to get prejudice away even as "we are black, brown, or white, we all bleed the same blood of patriots" (Cooper). He is saying that no matter what we look or act like we are all the same on the inside. This is really important because people want to judge people by what their religion is or by the color of their skin and Trump wants people to put that aside and realize we are all the same inside.
In the first article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," discussed the highlights of Trump's address by talking about how "he delivered [the] greatest hits of American mottos" (Poulos). Trump also addressed how "money...must forever be servants, not masters," which is a huge problem in the American society (Poulos). The points that Poulos made about Trump's inaugural address helps support his opinion on it being a great speech.
In the second article, "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat" Cooper discusses how most of what Trump is saying is fraud. While reading this article something that I found interesting was that "Trump presented himself as the savior to solve all our problems," which is something that most Presidents have promised and Trumps actions also go against what he is trying to say (Cooper). By reading this article Cooper just the reader the impress that all Trump is doing is telling the American people what the want to hear without having the intentions of fulfilling those promises.
I read both of the articles. In the first article, it was showing a view into the positive side of Trump's speech. What really stood out to me in the article was when the author said "in a darkening, more hostile world, the American people need more than deliverance at the lowest, most primal level" (Poulos). It stood out the most in this article to me because America is in a low or dark time right now, and what we need for our country is a miracle. Then, Poulos said "the first step to making America great again is to reorient commerce and it's instruments". Meaning to me that the first step to making America great again is to change the direction we are going now and start a better path for America.
In the second article, the author discussed many bad things Trump is going to do as president. But what stood out to me was that it kept saying in the article "so tat stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less in taxes" (Cooper). That is not fair that rich people are getting to pay less in taxes than the people that can barley be able to afford food like, the lower class people or the middle class people in America. as for people on Obamacare, they will be left without insurance.
After watching Trump's inaugural address I was fairly impressed. I feel like if he does all he is promising that he will make a positive impact. He has given himself high standards however, and it will be very disappointing if he doesn't fulfill them.
The article in favor of Trump's speech seemed more elaborate in that it explained what Trump will have to aid in order to improve America, and that "the first step to making America great again is to reorient commerce...around "real Americans" in the literal sense" (Poulos). It states the reality that it will be difficult but not impossible to turn America around for the better.
The article opposing Trump's speech was very harsh and biased saying "there is precisely zero sign that America's 45th president is going to do anything to make good" (Cooper). I feel like it gives not even a hint of hope for the new president and that it downgrades what he has said and brings out the bad only. If a person were to solely read this article they would see Trump as a terrible president with bad ideals and plans while the other article supports him but does not sugarcoat him, giving you free room to create your own opinions.
I had read both articles. In the first article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" mainly just talked about how great his speech was. One thing that stood out to me was when in the article it said "Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves." He is saying that he wants to help the people by providing what they need.
The second article "Don't believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat." This article mainly talked about the bad things that Trump will do as president. The part that stood out to me was when it said "There is precisely zero sign that America's 45th president is going to do anything to make good on his fiercely populist promises." They are saying that Trump only said those things that would help America, but not actually do anything to help the country.
The author of "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address, Our President is a Plutocrat" was very aggressive in his argument against the validity of our president's speech. The author's main argument was that the only people Trump's plans would benefit are the upper class, people who don't need any more benefits. The author talked about how Trump is trying to appeal to the people by appearing as a populist but in reality he's just another rich plutocrat. The writer was aggressive towards Trump and hit all of the president's weak spots with valid facts to back up his arguments. The article says, in reference to Trump's Heritage plan, that "thousands of people will die due to lack of insurance...so that stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less in taxes." (Cooper). This statement summarizes the author's writing and argumentative style well, it shows the forceful and expressive wording present in the entire article and expresses the author's obvious dislike for Trump.
After watching Trump's inauguration address, I was impressed. He is making a lot of huge promises that Americans will hold him accountable for. If he fails to keep his promises, he will be failing as president. While giving his speech, though, he used excellent public speaking skills. I didn't see him reading off of a paper. He memorized his speech and knew how to catch everyone's attention. The audience seemed very engaged and responsive. It did take them a while to respond after he was talking about other countries stealing America's companies and how he wasn't going to let people cross the boarders. Not a lot of people were cheering him on when he was on that subject.
Both articles about Trump had things that I agree with, but they are both very biased. I agree with the Cooper in the second article where he points out the open fraud when Trump says "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now" and how he's going to transfer the power "back to the people". I feel like this article was extremely biased, though, and contained a lot of sarcasm.
I read the second passage about Trump's Inaugural address. The writer in this article was talking about the many things Trump has spoken on. Basically stating you won't know what to expect from Trumps administration...
In the first article I choose the part where the author states: ""You came by the tens of millions to become a part of a historic movement"" (Poulos).I feel that this is a true statement that the whole day of the inauguration was a historical event. "It has turned against commerce as an organizing principle of unity" (Poulos). I think that the evidence talks about the commerce not being the unity of the economy but rather raging politics gathers the economies unity.
In the other article "On the contrary every action [Donald Trump's] taken so far signals the opposite" (Cooper). I can see how his is true because whatever he says tends to be the opposite of what hew says will happen. In other words his words are meant less than his actions. "Promises incomprehensible amounts of austerity...might pay less taxes" (Cooper) is an example in what Trumps actions are and not what he says.
I watched his speech and thought it was kind that he was mainly talking about the people themselves. He only focused on the people and said what he would do himself to make this place great again. "I will fight with my very last breath"-Donald Trump. He was saying halfway through his speech is he will fight for us and do whatever he can for us before he dies.
I read the article and the quote: "You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement." Is pretty accurate to say the less. It was a historical moment for the whole world. It was a moment that was a true mark in history and one no one will ever forget. The other quote that stock out to me was, "If passed, tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people will be killed due to lack of insurance. Why? So that stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less in taxes." If this is true then that is a pretty scary thought. It will be a dark day in the history of the United States if the 45th President lets all these people just die for his own benefit.
After reading both articles and watching the inauguration my opinion has stayed the same. People wanted a people's president but somehow that got twisted to where a first class billionaire who has never lived anywhere close to middle class has become the people's president. In Trumps speech he painted a picture of a very dangerous America and how he is the only way we can fix it. I think is is a dangerous way of thinking about America's problems because instead of uniting us under a cause he is uniting people under him similar to a dictator.
While watching the inaugural address, and considering both of the articles, I feel as if he is lying through his teeth. He talks about taking down the 1% and helping the 99% that is living in poverty while they live their life twice. Even though he gave a really good speech, I still feel like it is a joke to him. There is no telling what to expect over the next four years, but we will find out eventually where his intentions lie and what he is going to do.
I thought it was a very good speech as far as what he wanted to do for his agenda. He hit all of the bases he wanted to hit as well as talking about how no matter what your race we are all Americans. Ultimately whether what he plans to do will help or hurt us remains to be seen. The speech was not like Hitler or Stalin as some people try to compare it to. It was about connecting us together as America to further our American goals, not uniting under Trump and his goals. It was overflowing with nationalism which is not always the best thing however. Ultimately almost all of both of these articles were baseless and completely talking with not facts, ideas, or even attempting to show a desire for a lack of bias and truth. Whether you think he is going to do well in office or not does not take away from the fact that this speech is exactly what his agenda needed to appeal to his base and in that respect it was a good speech for him.
In the first article I chose the quote: "You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement," our new president told the people, "the likes of which the world has never seen before." And indeed, for the first time in living memory, public sentiment in the United States - down to its roots as a commercial republic - has turned against commerce as an organizing principle of unity." This whole statement is true, because the whole nation came together no matter how many people disagreed and it was truly a historic event.
In the other article, "on the contrary, every action [Donald Trump] [has] taken so far signals the opposite". Which means he says one things but his action show another. I can somewhat see how this is true but no matter what he is our president and we have to see if he lives up to his word.
James Poulos, author of "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" showed a strong man with a large vocabulary in order to express his opinion. Throughout the article he was able to use strong words and phrases such as "thunderous" and "intangible phantoms". Poulos was able to show his knowledge of the subject by not fully focusing on word for word quotes but by being able to use his understanding of the material. He was able to keep a positive outlook on our President and was able to help readers feel differently about such a biased topic.
I picked the passage of the 3rd paragraph. It was basically about how Trump speech was about populism and talked about drugs and gangs. I disagree because everything Trump said in the inauguration was true. Also drugs and gangs have become a big problem in the United States.
I picked the first paragraph to respond to and I agree with it. Trump speech was reflected off other presidents speeches. Also they used many other phrases that presidents had used in the past.
I read the section in Our President is a Plutocrat about Trump's promises vs his actions. So far, he has appointed only people that are wealthy Trump endorsers. When he was elected, I thought that since he was so wealthy, that no one would be able to buy him. I also thought that since he is rich, that he would have no problem with raising taxes for the upper class because it would not be that much for him. It seems that no matter who is in power, Washington will never change.
Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great provides an overview of Trump's Inauguration speech. It was full of good ideas, about how America needs to reorient itself for it to become more powerful. His ideas will be hard to enforce, as Congress will make it difficult. Trump's speech talks about how America is not as great as others may make it seem, and how he plans to fix it.
In the passage Donald Trump's Address Was Great, it is said it is a "historic moment" and I do not understand what was historic about it because we've had a rich, white male president before, though it is historic in the sense that he was the first president who was a TV show host and had no background in politics. In the same passage it also says "whatever's wrong with America can be fixed by what's right with America" and based on the fact that his running mate thinks you can "fix" the gays it really made me think if that is what he was talking about (and using background info I found out that the gay rights page on the white house log thing has been deleted). I understand what Donald means when he said"The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their home and the redistributed all across the world" because a lot of people lose their jobs do to them moving over seas. After reading this article I actually feel indifferent about Trump, I mean I don't like him as a person though I believe you should at least give him a chance because people are saying that America is doomed because he's president, but if you look at history America was doomed from the start.
Even after reading the second passage, "Don't Believe the Populism", because I feel the writer of the passage unfairly judged him in this. By this I mean when he said we're transferring the power from Washington to the people, the writer said this was and open fraud and the man hasn't even been given the chance to act on his promises before he was judged on them. Both of these texts are biased and I understand that and I understand that he is a bad person, but you have to put your personalfeelings aside while doing your job, so Trump will most likely not behave the same as he dis when he wasn't president, or maybe the way he behaved was just a hoax before to win.
The author of the article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" tells of Trump's use of references in his speech, how money is leaving the middle class and how commerce is what is causing it. In the first sentence of the article James Poulos, the author, starts off with, "President Donald Trump's inaugural address was a great American speech." Similar to the title, this sentence tells you how Poulos feels about the speech. In the paragraph following, he goes over the references Trump used in his speech to the former presidents. Poulos wrote the paragraph so that it instills the American spirit from messages of the presidents. Afterwards, Poulos tells of something that was missing from the ideas gone over in Trump's speech, and goes on to describe the audience listening to Trump and compared the silence to thunder. In the paragraph concerning commerce in the eyes of citizens, he relates the views of religion and secularism. By the end of the paragraph, it is clear what the basis of commerce us, then smoothly transitions back into Trump's speech with the sentence,"it too has been disenchanted. For the rest of the article, Poulos goes into Trump's views on commerce and his plans to fix the problem. The article gives the viewpoints of citizens while at the same time showing Trump's view and giving a detailed analysis of his speech.
In the Inaugural Address passage, I saw something that really caught my eye. In the passage it states, "Money and science must forever be servants, not maters" (Poulos). I feel like that is telling us, do NOT let money control you, do NOT base your views on money. Let money be something that works for you, something you earn, do NOT let money take over your life, don't live FOR money. There is not way to put this, but I feel like he is going to make us a better place, and make everything about money. I feel like he will focus on the class that doesn't have money, and the classes that don not have a lot.
I also read the "Don't believe the populism" article. And in this article, the writer tells you how Trump is a "bad" president, and how he will NOT do anything he states he will. The writer makes a good point, because Trump is only about fame, and popularity. He is like a teenager. Also he has never lived close to being broke, or close to middle class, so to hear him say all these things, it makes it hard to believe. He does not care about you, if you have no money, I just feel like he will not live up to his standards.
In the article "Donald Trumps inaugural address... " the passage is talking about how Trump wanted to make America a lot better. Also how how he wants to help the middle class and also help with the Earth. He also wanted to help with the economy of US.
Within the article ¨Donald Trump´s Inaugural Address Was Great¨, I found some good and bad points. For a good point, he wanted to redistribute wealth back to the middle class, which I agree with in my point of view. One bad point I noticed was the Cabinet members that he chose, as it disregards some of his platform.
In "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," it spoke about what was good about Trump's speech. It also spoke about how the middle class wanted safety and security and did not have it yet. It said that many people were at the speech, and that it would go down in history. Lastly, he talked about how technology is taking over America.
Trump's inauguration was the highlight of 2017 so far and his speech being talked about all over. The two articles, one good and one bad view on the 45th president's speech was in some instances eye opening. The articles go more in depth of his platform of what he wants to do like "redistribute the wealth" because it is being "ripped for middle class homes" and his very cliche line of "transferring the power from Washington, DC., and giving it back to you, the people" (Poulos, Cooper). I thought a lot of his speech was cliche and somewhat contradicting to some of his other stances.
After reading each of the article, I have come to the conclusion that neither make much sense. The writers "craft" seems to be confused, switching stances throughout the article. The article is titled "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," yet later in the article it says that Trump left out the "talk of [America's] greatness." While it is not wrong to express personal belief in articles, it is appropriate to appreciate the other side of what one is biased against. The second article made many statement, such as "These are real problems and... Trump is.. right to skewer America's past leaders for failing to solve them" (Cooper). It is fine to list an issue you have a problem with, but without evidence and a solution to the problem, there is no real point being made. Each article needs to further elaborate their articles. The readers can then better understand and decide what to believe. The writers craft struggled to make any major points in both articles.
So far in 2017, we already are having a interesting start with Donald Trump as president. There is a lot of backlash coming from his inauguration, which I can understand. His speech was very cliche and boring. The articles are about his POV about politics and his platform.
In "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat," the author does not give actual facts on Trump. The author just states his opinions and didn't give any facts whatsoever that Trump is a plutocrat.
After reading the articles and watching Donald Trump's inauguration speech I thought it was boring and that he used other peoples speeches for his, people like Bill Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt. The second article talks about how he plans to get rid of Obama care and plans to do nothing to replace it which will leave a lot of other people without health insurance.
I read the passage about President Trump's inaugural address. The author wrote that "there's little [Donald Trump] can do given that most manufacturing jobs have already been outsourced or automated away," (Cooper). This intrigued me, because it seemed to be a main point of his argument. I think it would be really disappointing to find out that our new President couldn't actually create the jobs he claimed he could.
ReplyDeleteI also read the positive review of the address. One thing that interested me in this article was when the author talked about America's importance in the world, saying that "America ... colors the character of the world," (Poulos). I really enjoyed his wording, but I found the fifth paragraph lacking in it's review of President Trump's inaugural address, which was disappointing; I wished to hear more about the address and less fluff.
I read both articles. In the positive reviews the author said, "Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods... these are just reasonable demands for righteous people and a righteous public... the first step to making America great again is to reorient commerce and its instruments" (Poulos). I found this interesting. He used one of Trump's quotes to strengthen his argument on how Trump's inauguration was amazing.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Cooper says, "'we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people'... it's a noble sentiment-- and an open fraud." His article is going against the other author because he seems to see Trump as a Fraud. They take similar quotes from Trump's inauguration and use them to their benefit.
In the first speech "Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" I saw something interesting. Trump said that "money and science must forever be servants, not masters" (Poulos). I am not sure what he exactly means by this, but I can infer that he has plans to change taxes, or anything with money. Money is something everyone wants, and seems to need to have. It seems that he believes it controls us. Yes, money is a necessity. I can agree that money does seem to "control" us. Everything you might possibly want or need involves some type of currency. Money is both a master, and a servant I believe. It has control over us, being a master. It serves us, by being available to us, but not always in the greatest amount. I don't think you can change it. Today, you need money for everything.
ReplyDeleteIn the opposing speech, Trump has plans to cut off a large percentage of health insurance. That is a huge effect on our country. Almost everyone in our country has some type of health insurance. It's a necessity for those who can't work, or who are disabled in some way. With lack of insurance, so many people will lose the free availability to doctors for their needs. The only good part about this is that the taxes that pay for insurance, taken from the higher class, will only reduce the amount on taxes for them. That doesn't seem to be fair. Thousands of people get to die without insurance, while the higher class gets to sit in the now larger piles of money that they already had enough of? I do not see the good in this plan.
When I watched the inaugural address, I thought that he made very good claims, so that people would want to listen more. I liked how he said that no matter what color we were we all had the same blood in our bodies. I also liked how he said that he would do whatever he could. I believe from what he said that he can do something because you can obviously see that he doesn't want to be the kind of president that doesn't do anything.
ReplyDeleteI think that both of the reactions bring up good points to the concern of what President Trump can do. In the one for Trump, they bring up what he says that can give us hope. They talk more about how he can help us and how he is good for our country. To contrast, the other reaction made it sound like President Trump was never going to do anything for us. Both of the reactions seemed biased to me because they both tried to prove their points, while neglecting the other sides reaction.
After watching Trump's Inaugural Address, I was impressed by Trump's professional attitude. While his speech did have many similarities to his campaign policies, he was very composed and more detailed about his plans.
ReplyDeleteThe articles about the inauguration both had several valid points that I agree with. From the first article, I think it is true that "American people need more than the deliverance at the lowest, most primal level" (Poulos). Trump's inclusion of all people in his speech was inspiring to hear after the many threats during his campaign. However, on the reverse side, I am concerned about Trump's lack of preparation about ObamaCare's replacement. While "Congressional Republicans are preparing to repeal ObamaCare, [they] have no plans whatsoever to replace it with anything even halfway decent" (Cooper).
Personally, I enjoy the attitude of the first article better than the first. It seems less biased and more thought-out, even though I share similar opinions to those stated in the second article.
I read both articles. The first one, "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," spoke about how great Trump is. But something that stood out to me about this article is when the author called America a "cult of competition" (Poulos). This stood out to me because Americans tend to fight over money, and it is quite ironic to me for Americans to elect a very wealthy person for office when money is so valuable to the American people. The author even said that American people are people "for whom money and science must forever be servants, not masters" (Poulos). I see this as meaning that Americans are controllers of money and science. The American government can control how valuable money can be to American citizens, and what scientific facts are released to Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat," it talked about the bad things in what Trump said he is going to do. Something that really stood out to me about this article is that the author mentioned a lot more in-depth things about not only Trump's speech, but also what he said during his campaign. What really shocked me while reading this is when the author added in that "tens or perhaps thousands of people will be killed due to lack of insurance... so that stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less taxes" (Cooper). This is extremely unsettling. I did not know what Trump was planning to do with healthcare until I read this. In my final opinion, I am not impressed by Trump or any of his supporters. I would like to see, hear, or read more of actual stuff that Trump wants to happen. Not just him telling people what they want to hear, because that is what I feel his whole Inaugural Address was about.
After watching President Trump's inaugural address, I heard some things that I agree with and some that I am concerned about. First, I heard him talk about how the party of the president is not important as long as they do what they claimed they would. I agree with this because, to me, the whole "party" system seems like just another way to divide us up. In fact, some of the founding fathers also disliked the idea of a two-party government. On the other hand, there were parts of the address that concerned me. I heard him talk about how he is going to help give the power to the people and that "we will be forgotten no longer." While these things are very important to me, and while I hope he does follow through with this, I doubt that he will because of his actions so far. I will elaborate more on that later on.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the first article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," I noticed that, as expected, it was very biased and that it supported everything he has said and done. While it was biased, it still touched on important topics that President Trump covered in his address. For example, the article stated, "America's commercial elites exploited the people, shattering what has so long been the core of our identity" (Poulos). I completely agree with what the article says and with what President Trump said on the issue of the wealth of our middle class as compared to the rest of the world. I think that our middle and lower classes have been treated unfairly and that change is a necessity. However, I also think that Donald Trump is one of the last people we should have elected if that's a problem we ever wanted to solve. Once again, I will explain why I think that later on. On a final note, I think that the article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" addresses key issues, even though a tad bit biased, in a way that expresses a need for change, in which the author thinks that President Trump will bring forth.
While reading the second article, "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address, Our President Is a Populist," I noticed that it is more biased than the first article, but covers a wider variety of the issues our country faces. For example, the article comments on wealth distribution, peoples' rights, and healthcare. What stood out to me the most in the article, which is also the most important thing to me concerning President Trump and our future, is his actions and how they may affect us. For example, the article says, "His Cabinet is filled with wealthy bankers and donors to the Republican Party. Every agency designed to protect citizens is going to be staffed with zealous partisans of the predatory businesses they are supposed to oversee" (Cooper). In my opinion, from what I have researched and seen about the people he is appointing, what he said in the address about giving the power back to the people and helping the middle class seems false. If he truly wanted to improve the condition of the middle and lower classes and give the power back to the people, he would not be literally giving the power to billionaires by appointing them to these positions and he would not be repealing things like ObamaCare, which benefit the same people he is trying to help. Despite the fact that I believe these things, I hope that I am incorrect and that he will improve the lives of the majority of the population that do not live luxurious lives by giving the power back to them and "making America great again."
In the first article, it talked about how Trump wants to help America get back where the people make the decisions and are happy. As "Americans [We] want great schools for [our] children, safe neighborhoods for [our] families, and good jobs for themselves" (Poulos) to have better lives. When he states that he is saying that most people want the best for themselves and their families and Trump wants to help do that.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, Trump said how he wanted to get prejudice away even as "we are black, brown, or white, we all bleed the same blood of patriots" (Cooper). He is saying that no matter what we look or act like we are all the same on the inside. This is really important because people want to judge people by what their religion is or by the color of their skin and Trump wants people to put that aside and realize we are all the same inside.
In the first article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," discussed the highlights of Trump's address by talking about how "he delivered [the] greatest hits of American mottos" (Poulos). Trump also addressed how "money...must forever be servants, not masters," which is a huge problem in the American society (Poulos). The points that Poulos made about Trump's inaugural address helps support his opinion on it being a great speech.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat" Cooper discusses how most of what Trump is saying is fraud. While reading this article something that I found interesting was that "Trump presented himself as the savior to solve all our problems," which is something that most Presidents have promised and Trumps actions also go against what he is trying to say (Cooper). By reading this article Cooper just the reader the impress that all Trump is doing is telling the American people what the want to hear without having the intentions of fulfilling those promises.
I read both of the articles. In the first article, it was showing a view into the positive side of Trump's speech. What really stood out to me in the article was when the author said "in a darkening, more hostile world, the American people need more than deliverance at the lowest, most primal level" (Poulos). It stood out the most in this article to me because America is in a low or dark time right now, and what we need for our country is a miracle. Then, Poulos said "the first step to making America great again is to reorient commerce and it's instruments". Meaning to me that the first step to making America great again is to change the direction we are going now and start a better path for America.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, the author discussed many bad things Trump is going to do as president. But what stood out to me was that it kept saying in the article "so tat stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less in taxes" (Cooper). That is not fair that rich people are getting to pay less in taxes than the people that can barley be able to afford food like, the lower class people or the middle class people in America. as for people on Obamacare, they will be left without insurance.
After watching Trump's inaugural address I was fairly impressed. I feel like if he does all he is promising that he will make a positive impact. He has given himself high standards however, and it will be very disappointing if he doesn't fulfill them.
ReplyDeleteThe article in favor of Trump's speech seemed more elaborate in that it explained what Trump will have to aid in order to improve America, and that "the first step to making America great again is to reorient commerce...around "real Americans" in the literal sense" (Poulos). It states the reality that it will be difficult but not impossible to turn America around for the better.
The article opposing Trump's speech was very harsh and biased saying "there is precisely zero sign that America's 45th president is going to do anything to make good" (Cooper). I feel like it gives not even a hint of hope for the new president and that it downgrades what he has said and brings out the bad only. If a person were to solely read this article they would see Trump as a terrible president with bad ideals and plans while the other article supports him but does not sugarcoat him, giving you free room to create your own opinions.
I had read both articles. In the first article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" mainly just talked about how great his speech was. One thing that stood out to me was when in the article it said "Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves." He is saying that he wants to help the people by providing what they need.
ReplyDeleteThe second article "Don't believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat." This article mainly talked about the bad things that Trump will do as president. The part that stood out to me was when it said "There is precisely zero sign that America's 45th president is going to do anything to make good on his fiercely populist promises." They are saying that Trump only said those things that would help America, but not actually do anything to help the country.
The author of "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address, Our President is a Plutocrat" was very aggressive in his argument against the validity of our president's speech. The author's main argument was that the only people Trump's plans would benefit are the upper class, people who don't need any more benefits. The author talked about how Trump is trying to appeal to the people by appearing as a populist but in reality he's just another rich plutocrat. The writer was aggressive towards Trump and hit all of the president's weak spots with valid facts to back up his arguments. The article says, in reference to Trump's Heritage plan, that "thousands of people will die due to lack of insurance...so that stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less in taxes." (Cooper). This statement summarizes the author's writing and argumentative style well, it shows the forceful and expressive wording present in the entire article and expresses the author's obvious dislike for Trump.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Trump's inauguration address, I was impressed. He is making a lot of huge promises that Americans will hold him accountable for. If he fails to keep his promises, he will be failing as president. While giving his speech, though, he used excellent public speaking skills. I didn't see him reading off of a paper. He memorized his speech and knew how to catch everyone's attention. The audience seemed very engaged and responsive. It did take them a while to respond after he was talking about other countries stealing America's companies and how he wasn't going to let people cross the boarders. Not a lot of people were cheering him on when he was on that subject.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles about Trump had things that I agree with, but they are both very biased. I agree with the Cooper in the second article where he points out the open fraud when Trump says "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now" and how he's going to transfer the power "back to the people". I feel like this article was extremely biased, though, and contained a lot of sarcasm.
I read the second passage about Trump's Inaugural address. The writer in this article was talking about the many things Trump has spoken on. Basically stating you won't know what to expect from Trumps administration...
ReplyDeleteWhat else?
DeleteIn the first article I choose the part where the author states: ""You came by the tens of millions to become a part of a historic movement"" (Poulos).I feel that this is a true statement that the whole day of the inauguration was a historical event. "It has turned against commerce as an organizing principle of unity" (Poulos). I think that the evidence talks about the commerce not being the unity of the economy but rather raging politics gathers the economies unity.
ReplyDeleteIn the other article "On the contrary every action [Donald Trump's] taken so far signals the opposite" (Cooper). I can see how his is true because whatever he says tends to be the opposite of what hew says will happen. In other words his words are meant less than his actions. "Promises incomprehensible amounts of austerity...might pay less taxes" (Cooper) is an example in what Trumps actions are and not what he says.
I watched his speech and thought it was kind that he was mainly talking about the people themselves. He only focused on the people and said what he would do himself to make this place great again. "I will fight with my very last breath"-Donald Trump. He was saying halfway through his speech is he will fight for us and do whatever he can for us before he dies.
ReplyDeleteWhat else?
DeleteYour quote is dangling.
I read the article and the quote: "You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement." Is pretty accurate to say the less. It was a historical moment for the whole world. It was a moment that was a true mark in history and one no one will ever forget. The other quote that stock out to me was, "If passed, tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people will be killed due to lack of insurance. Why? So that stinking rich people like Donald Trump might pay less in taxes." If this is true then that is a pretty scary thought. It will be a dark day in the history of the United States if the 45th President lets all these people just die for his own benefit.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both articles and watching the inauguration my opinion has stayed the same. People wanted a people's president but somehow that got twisted to where a first class billionaire who has never lived anywhere close to middle class has become the people's president. In Trumps speech he painted a picture of a very dangerous America and how he is the only way we can fix it. I think is is a dangerous way of thinking about America's problems because instead of uniting us under a cause he is uniting people under him similar to a dictator.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the inaugural address, and considering both of the articles, I feel as if he is lying through his teeth. He talks about taking down the 1% and helping the 99% that is living in poverty while they live their life twice. Even though he gave a really good speech, I still feel like it is a joke to him. There is no telling what to expect over the next four years, but we will find out eventually where his intentions lie and what he is going to do.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a very good speech as far as what he wanted to do for his agenda. He hit all of the bases he wanted to hit as well as talking about how no matter what your race we are all Americans. Ultimately whether what he plans to do will help or hurt us remains to be seen. The speech was not like Hitler or Stalin as some people try to compare it to. It was about connecting us together as America to further our American goals, not uniting under Trump and his goals. It was overflowing with nationalism which is not always the best thing however. Ultimately almost all of both of these articles were baseless and completely talking with not facts, ideas, or even attempting to show a desire for a lack of bias and truth. Whether you think he is going to do well in office or not does not take away from the fact that this speech is exactly what his agenda needed to appeal to his base and in that respect it was a good speech for him.
ReplyDeleteIn the first article I chose the quote: "You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement," our new president told the people, "the likes of which the world has never seen before." And indeed, for the first time in living memory, public sentiment in the United States - down to its roots as a commercial republic - has turned against commerce as an organizing principle of unity." This whole statement is true, because the whole nation came together no matter how many people disagreed and it was truly a historic event.
ReplyDeleteIn the other article, "on the contrary, every action [Donald Trump] [has] taken so far signals the opposite". Which means he says one things but his action show another. I can somewhat see how this is true but no matter what he is our president and we have to see if he lives up to his word.
James Poulos, author of "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" showed a strong man with a large vocabulary in order to express his opinion. Throughout the article he was able to use strong words and phrases such as "thunderous" and "intangible phantoms". Poulos was able to show his knowledge of the subject by not fully focusing on word for word quotes but by being able to use his understanding of the material. He was able to keep a positive outlook on our President and was able to help readers feel differently about such a biased topic.
ReplyDeleteI picked the passage of the 3rd paragraph. It was basically about how Trump speech was about populism and talked about drugs and gangs. I disagree because everything Trump said in the inauguration was true. Also drugs and gangs have become a big problem in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI picked the first paragraph to respond to and I agree with it. Trump speech was reflected off other presidents speeches. Also they used many other phrases that presidents had used in the past.
I read the section in Our President is a Plutocrat about Trump's promises vs his actions. So far, he has appointed only people that are wealthy Trump endorsers. When he was elected, I thought that since he was so wealthy, that no one would be able to buy him. I also thought that since he is rich, that he would have no problem with raising taxes for the upper class because it would not be that much for him. It seems that no matter who is in power, Washington will never change.
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great provides an overview of Trump's Inauguration speech. It was full of good ideas, about how America needs to reorient itself for it to become more powerful. His ideas will be hard to enforce, as Congress will make it difficult. Trump's speech talks about how America is not as great as others may make it seem, and how he plans to fix it.
In the passage Donald Trump's Address Was Great, it is said it is a "historic moment" and I do not understand what was historic about it because we've had a rich, white male president before, though it is historic in the sense that he was the first president who was a TV show host and had no background in politics. In the same passage it also says "whatever's wrong with America can be fixed by what's right with America" and based on the fact that his running mate thinks you can "fix" the gays it really made me think if that is what he was talking about (and using background info I found out that the gay rights page on the white house log thing has been deleted). I understand what Donald means when he said"The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their home and the redistributed all across the world" because a lot of people lose their jobs do to them moving over seas. After reading this article I actually feel indifferent about Trump, I mean I don't like him as a person though I believe you should at least give him a chance because people are saying that America is doomed because he's president, but if you look at history America was doomed from the start.
ReplyDeleteEven after reading the second passage, "Don't Believe the Populism", because I feel the writer of the passage unfairly judged him in this. By this I mean when he said we're transferring the power from Washington to the people, the writer said this was and open fraud and the man hasn't even been given the chance to act on his promises before he was judged on them. Both of these texts are biased and I understand that and I understand that he is a bad person, but you have to put your personalfeelings aside while doing your job, so Trump will most likely not behave the same as he dis when he wasn't president, or maybe the way he behaved was just a hoax before to win.
The author of the article "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great" tells of Trump's use of references in his speech, how money is leaving the middle class and how commerce is what is causing it. In the first sentence of the article James Poulos, the author, starts off with, "President Donald Trump's inaugural address was a great American speech." Similar to the title, this sentence tells you how Poulos feels about the speech. In the paragraph following, he goes over the references Trump used in his speech to the former presidents. Poulos wrote the paragraph so that it instills the American spirit from messages of the presidents.
ReplyDeleteAfterwards, Poulos tells of something that was missing from the ideas gone over in Trump's speech, and goes on to describe the audience listening to Trump and compared the silence to thunder. In the paragraph concerning commerce in the eyes of citizens, he relates the views of religion and secularism. By the end of the paragraph, it is clear what the basis of commerce us, then smoothly transitions back into Trump's speech with the sentence,"it too has been disenchanted. For the rest of the article, Poulos goes into Trump's views on commerce and his plans to fix the problem. The article gives the viewpoints of citizens while at the same time showing Trump's view and giving a detailed analysis of his speech.
In the Inaugural Address passage, I saw something that really caught my eye. In the passage it states, "Money and science must forever be servants, not maters" (Poulos). I feel like that is telling us, do NOT let money control you, do NOT base your views on money. Let money be something that works for you, something you earn, do NOT let money take over your life, don't live FOR money. There is not way to put this, but I feel like he is going to make us a better place, and make everything about money. I feel like he will focus on the class that doesn't have money, and the classes that don not have a lot.
ReplyDeleteI also read the "Don't believe the populism" article. And in this article, the writer tells you how Trump is a "bad" president, and how he will NOT do anything he states he will. The writer makes a good point, because Trump is only about fame, and popularity. He is like a teenager. Also he has never lived close to being broke, or close to middle class, so to hear him say all these things, it makes it hard to believe. He does not care about you, if you have no money, I just feel like he will not live up to his standards.
In the article "Donald Trumps inaugural address... " the passage is talking about how Trump wanted to make America a lot better. Also how how he wants to help the middle class and also help with the Earth. He also wanted to help with the economy of US.
ReplyDeleteWhat else do you think?
DeleteWithin the article ¨Donald Trump´s Inaugural Address Was Great¨, I found some good and bad points. For a good point, he wanted to redistribute wealth back to the middle class, which I agree with in my point of view. One bad point I noticed was the Cabinet members that he chose, as it disregards some of his platform.
ReplyDeleteIn "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," it spoke about what was good about Trump's speech. It also spoke about how the middle class wanted safety and security and did not have it yet. It said that many people were at the speech, and that it would go down in history. Lastly, he talked about how technology is taking over America.
ReplyDeleteWhat else do you think? This is summary.
DeleteTrump's inauguration was the highlight of 2017 so far and his speech being talked about all over. The two articles, one good and one bad view on the 45th president's speech was in some instances eye opening. The articles go more in depth of his platform of what he wants to do like "redistribute the wealth" because it is being "ripped for middle class homes" and his very cliche line of "transferring the power from Washington, DC., and giving it back to you, the people" (Poulos, Cooper). I thought a lot of his speech was cliche and somewhat contradicting to some of his other stances.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading each of the article, I have come to the conclusion that neither make much sense. The writers "craft" seems to be confused, switching stances throughout the article. The article is titled "Donald Trump's Inaugural Address Was Great," yet later in the article it says that Trump left out the "talk of [America's] greatness." While it is not wrong to express personal belief in articles, it is appropriate to appreciate the other side of what one is biased against. The second article made many statement, such as "These are real problems and... Trump is.. right to skewer America's past leaders for failing to solve them" (Cooper). It is fine to list an issue you have a problem with, but without evidence and a solution to the problem, there is no real point being made. Each article needs to further elaborate their articles. The readers can then better understand and decide what to believe. The writers craft struggled to make any major points in both articles.
ReplyDeleteSo far in 2017, we already are having a interesting start with Donald Trump as president. There is a lot of backlash coming from his inauguration, which I can understand. His speech was very cliche and boring. The articles are about his POV about politics and his platform.
ReplyDeleteIn "Don't Believe the Populism of Trump's Inaugural Address. Our President Is a Plutocrat," the author does not give actual facts on Trump. The author just states his opinions and didn't give any facts whatsoever that Trump is a plutocrat.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles and watching Donald Trump's inauguration speech I thought it was boring and that he used other peoples speeches for his, people like Bill Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt. The second article talks about how he plans to get rid of Obama care and plans to do nothing to replace it which will leave a lot of other people without health insurance.
ReplyDelete