A violation of persuasive ethics - Late

 The violation of persuasive ethics I wanted to write about is based on most of Donald Trumps campaign.  Donald Trump has consistently played on the fears of the American people instead of giving them the whole truth or even a semi-plausible strategy to change things. Instead he uses his air time to discuss himself in the third person about how he is the greatest, so good at everything, and has many friends of many different races and religions. This has built up support among his supporters who just see Donald Trump as someone who can fix anything, however there have been no strategies presented, the people supporting him seem to be OK with his idea of just saying that he is so skilled that everything will work out well. That has played well with his base in garnering an almost inseparable support system for Mr. Trump and it is the reason he has been polling so well and consistently. I think his focus on the fear aspect of persuasion is detrimental to the progress of the nation, and it easily convinces the "uninformed" that things are black and white when in reality we live in a world full of grey. However even though I do feel like this is a serious violation of persuasive ethics, it has been highly successful for him. It has played on the fear in many Americans hearts about the evil things in the world( who usually aren't US citizens) and how they are coming to kill us and or hurt us financially. If he only used fear his campaign wouldn't be as successfull as it is today. However to go along with the use of fear Mr. Trump has always been stubborn like a bull when confronted with facts. When Mr. Trump said that he saw thousands of Muslims cheering when the World Trade Center came down, it caused the media to react and look into it and even contact the journalist who wrote the article trump was originally referring to. However there came back to be no evidence of thousands of Muslims cheering or even hundreds and the journalist has been adamant about this. Although the truth seems to dispute what Trump said, He is a stubborn figure who will almost never apologize or try to take back what he has said. This along with the fear is why I think he has caused a serious violation of persuasive ethics. His followers have began to agree that Trump is right and when confronted with the truth or factual evidence, if it doesn't match up with what Trump says it doesn't match up with what they believe. His use of persuasion although very effective has violated what I believe are persuasive ethics because he doesn't focus on what the truth is but rather how he can use fear to connect to a sector of Americans. The other problem is that fear is something that everyone has inside of them and it is an emotion that is highly capable of taking over someones life. He is using one of the strongest persuasive emotions to run for the highest office in our country. He should be more ethical if anything rather than playing on fear alone.

The Campaign for College Affordability

As a current college student the idea of debt is not at the forefront of my mind. However time and time again I am told that once college ends, the debt that I have accumulated will be a rock that will be hard to escape from under. This is made more and more real with every article I read about millennials moving back in with there parents after college. There are many ideas in this election cycle about how to make college more affordable and the burden of debt lesser.

With college being the new equivalent to a "high school degree" from our parents generation, it makes finding a good job without one increasingly difficult. However the main difference between our parents generation and ours is the aggressively rising cost of college tuition. Today nearly 20% of all people with student debt end up defaulting on there loans because they can not afford them. There are current government programs in the works to try and help lower the cost of college affordability. The two main sides on the issue of college affordability are of course Republican and Democrat because, this is American after all.

 The democrats are in favor of raising taxes to reduce the cost of college by having the government subsidize more of the cost, and in turn with the higher education Americans will receive this will lead to spur in economic growth which will in turn hopefully cancel out the increase in taxes needed for the government subsidization. On the other hand the republicans believe that college students have been negatively affected by government subsidize, and that Colleges have taken advantage of these subsidies by increasing there cost of tuition to get more money from both the student and the government. With this in mind the Republican plan is to cut most of the funding for these subsidies, such as Pell Grants and Public Service Loan Forgiveness to name a few. This is believed to cause colleges to lower the cost of tuition to make up for the amount of students who will no longer be able to afford college because of the reduction in subsidies. In theory both of these plans make sense and seem like they could work. However in a capitalist society it is known that the best interest isn't about the overall good but about what works the best financially. The movement for college affordability targets everyone in our country who want a higher education and or a more educated country overall. Even more specifically it targets current college students, future college students, and parents of those college students. With this being said it has been a large democratic push as a talking point for this election cycle because there has not been a plan produced by republicans that gives a clear message on how college could be made more affordable, and how that could happen in the near future, rather just counter talking points on how there would have to be an increase in taxes to make the democratic plans work. The increase in cost of tuition can also be seen corresponding with the drop off in State Government funds to State schools and universities. This has also led the federal government to take a larger burden of the funding, which has increased the political interest of this issue.

In closing this is an important topic for not just my generation but future generations also. College education keeps becoming more and more necessary in our country to further progress in life economically. With the cost of tuition still rising nearly every year this is a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. We need to look to our politicians for what plans they have and how they will tackle this issue especially with a new president being appointed in only a year. This is something that affects our country at nearly level and especially economically. There is almost always a correlation between education of a countries citizens and there economic capabilities especially in a democratic society. This is why I believe the campaign to reform the cost of college is an important one.

Public Arguements - Kim Davis/The Clock Bomb

Religious Liberty is something that our country was founded upon and and something that makes our country great. However with times ever changing, religious liberty can come into conflict with our formal laws and regulations. A very popular public argument about religious liberty is the account of Kim Davis a county clerk from Kentucky. There are two very distinct sides to this argument, the side for religious liberty, and the side for following public law.

The two arguments are just and meant for the right reasons but it is a grey area between faith and law. The religious Liberty side believes that you should not have to violate your religious faith to do your job and that accommodation's should be made possible. The Kim Davis story preaches to all people of faith in our country and furthermore to some people who do not believe in gay marriage. The belief is that if something violates your faith (gay marriage for this instance) you should not have too do it out of both moral and religious beliefs. The religious liberty side has mainly portrayed the opposition as violating religious rights and undermining faith.

However the other side that is preaching public law and abiding by it, believes that it is part of your job and duty as a public employee or public business that you serve and help everyone despite certain disagreements you may have with the person or the lifestyle that they live. This side of the argument isn't aimed at a particular audience but more so everyone who lives in our country and has to abide by the laws of our country. This side of the argument views the other side as just needing to follow the public law and put your religious beliefs second.

Both sides of the argument have very valid points and like I stated previously it puts the whole situation in a grey area between faith and law.