In a commentary posted by Pondering Politics, author Jessica Nguyen addresses her concern with the Trump administration’s neglect of environmental protection; specifically, when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate change agreement.
Nguyen claims that failing to cooperate with the Paris climate change agreement causes Trump to lose power and weakens the United States. The Paris climate change agreement was created in 2015 and has been ratified by over 150 nations. During its creation, former President Obama committed the U.S to this agreement, however, Trump quickly backed out of this prior commitment. Nguyen attacks Trump’s character when discussing French President Emmanuel Macron’s effort to draw the U.S back into the agreement. She stated that, as usual, efforts to change Trump’s mind are futile. This point in her argument could have been strengthened if she had cited other instances where Trump’s stubbornness prevailed, and he refused to admit his misdoing. This would substantiate her criticism of Trump’s general persona.
I agree with Jessica that Trump’s decision weakens America and makes him look ridiculous, as climate change is too obviously real to ignore or deny. As Jessica is not a climate scientist herself, I believe that had she cited data or quotes from climate change experts, her argument would have been stronger. I also believe Nguyen should have ended her commentary on a more active note with a call to action, encouraging citizens to raise their voices in favor of clean energy instead of hoping other countries will clean up our mess. Overall, I liked the argument presented in this commentary, but I think it would be helpful if more information from other sources were present.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn an editorial posted by Suburban Journal, author Carly McConnell ridicules Trump’s presidency by attacking his policies as well as his child-like behavior. She then urges Americans to consider the option of impeachment by revealing a plethora of examples of how Trump has failed to lead the country effectively.
ReplyDeleteMcConnell begins her argument by stating that Trump is ill suited for the President position since he has no prior political experience. Instead, Trump is a TV host and businessman who won the office by “unfiltered ramblings” making his legitimacy questionable. Additionally, McConnell states that not enough action has been taken to control Trump as evident through his aimless firing of highly regarded government officials. She claims that Trump has been on a “rampage” that started with the removal of acting attorney general Sally Yates back in January, but the most controversial firing concerns FBI director James Comey in May. Yates was fired after refusing to defend Trump’s immigration order, while Comey was fired while investigating Trump’s ties with Russia. Through these examples, McConnell highlights Trump’s erratic behavior to replace anyone willing speak against him, and as a result, undermines his qualifications as the President of the United States. McConnell’s argument could have been strengthened by incorporating background information about Yates and Comey in order to show how Trump’s decision was ridiculous and illegitimate. Polls could also be used here to show the low approval rates of Trump's decision and further urge Americans to reconsider his motives.
Additionally, McConnell’s discredits Trump by emphasizing his tendency to shamelessly make decisions based on self-interest, which is unconstitutional and infringes upon the public’s rights. The travel bans Trump implemented not only threaten individual liberties, but they are also “cruel” because Saudi Arabia was left out due to Trump’s business ties in the country. McConnell also recalls the self-promotion by the Trump administration such as when Kellyanne Conway told Americans to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff” or the pressure placed on foreign diplomats to stay and host events at the Trump's Hotel. This point could have been further supported by providing specific examples of foreign interactions, as well as links to these instances so that audience understands the claims are factual. Furthermore, the use of statistics showing how Trump is profiting from these policies could enhance the argument since numbers are objective.
All in all, I agree with McConnell’s opinion. Trump’s decisions are not in the best interest of the country and his policies seem to further increase tensions. The editorial is constructed well, and there seem to be few flaws in the reasoning. The commentary, however, could have been strengthened by citing the information as well as including numerical data. Furthermore, I believe that McConnell should have ended the editorial by informing the audience of the actions they can take to encourage Congress to take action against Donald Trump. After all, the power of the country lies with the people and individuals must understand when their rights are at risk.