“I think it’s a very nasty question”: Trumpian anti-Black racism and the limits of traditional journalistic standards

This study is concerned with the linguistic devices used to persuade and manipulate audiences of political discourse in the 2020 US Presidential election. This study focused on Donald Trump's and Joe Biden's rhetorical and framing strategies in their speech and debate. A qualitative method was used to conduct the study to analyze the data. The study aimed to find the rhetorical and framing strategies of Donald Trump and Joe Biden and to find how they persuade and manipulate audiences of the political discourse. The findings reveal that the rhetorical strategy, Pathos, or the appeal to emotions, was utilized the most by Donald Trump compared to a more balanced use of all rhetorical strategies by Joe Biden. At the same time, logos were focused more on debates for both candidates. For framing strategies, both candidates utilized emphasis the most to stress the importance of an issue or to concentrate on a message. According to the analysis, Donald Trump mainly used persuasive language, which can be seen by referencing "patriots" several times to evoke a sense of unity, which is different compared to his debates, where he is very manipulative in using statistics and facts that are not fully referenced and an abundance of straight lies. This can be seen when he claimed that he cut "drug prices," which is false. Joe Biden used a persuasive strategy by referencing history and events such as "Charlottesville".

This chapter demonstrates how Indigenous peoples in Africa could mobilise missionary networks, print technologies, and new literacies to develop their own cultural and political agency through the genre of the petition. In its multiple iterations, the petition marked the sites of contestation between not just converts and the British government but also black professionals, black journalists, black clergy, and other marginalised groups in the emerging literary culture of nineteenth-century South Africa. Even ‘illiterate’ African kings would occasionally appear as signatories to such petitions. As a genre of political writing, the petition serves not only the function of delineating the political from the civil, but, as this chapter shows, is in itself a sign of the penetration of literature into the consciousness and daily experiences of those who were by law British subjects but who were in practice excluded from the colonial privileges that accompanied subjugation.

The modern comparative paradigm includes a multidimensional and comprehensive study of significant phenomena of structural, functional and linguo-pragmatic order of the world's languages. The phenomenon of military-political discourse and US-China trade wars in two languages is being analyzed in the article. The research subject is language expressive means in media texts on the issues of Donald Trump's US-China trade war in 2025 with a functional approach (in media and military-political discourse). The US-China trade war continues to be the focus of global news, with Chinese and American media scrutinizing its implications for the global economy. With the recent increase in tariffs from the US to the rest of the world, the situation is becoming increasingly tense. Donald Trump, the leader of the American nation, as a publicly speaking politician in the current geopolitical environment, must endeavor to effectively use the expressive possibilities of language in order to convince the audience of the correctness of his course, ideas and create a positive image of his personality. The study of Donald Trump's language functioning and discursive practices in political rhetoric is the most urgent direction of modern fundamental and applied linguistics. The aim of the article is to study the linguistic means of expression in Donald Trump's speeches during the US-China trade war of 2025, as well as the phenomenology of linguo-axiology of US-China political-military discourse. The main content is concentrated around analyzing the concepts of ‘linguistic means of expression’, ‘linguo-axiology’, ‘Donald Trump's political rhetoric’, and ‘trade wars’ precisely from a linguistic point of view. The digital media text acts as a unit of analysis in the study of contemporary Chinese-language and English-language (digital) media. This study examines such authoritative sources as 《环球网》,《搜狐》,The South China Morning Post, The New York Times, Fox News, The Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal Guardian, and others. The choice of these digital media resources is conditioned by the fact that they cover a wide range of news agenda of international and domestic political character, which affect both geopolitical and social and economic agendas. It seems that such thematic diversity of material will allow us to comprehensively study the issues of China-US trade wars and linguistic means of expression in Donald Trump's political rhetoric.

This essay deals with the concept of enmity and its representation in Athenian drama and modern rhetoric. It analyses the dynamics of friendship and enmity and its prominent opposition, as well as the limits of the moral standard of helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies. This dichotomous pattern proved problematic not only in Ancient Athens, but also in today‘s politics.

Complaints about excessive economic burdens associated with regulation abound in contemporary political and legal rhetoric. In recent years, perhaps nowhere have these complaints been heard as loudly as in the context of U.S. regulations targeting the use of coal to supply power to the nation’s electricity system, as production levels in the coal industry dropped by nearly half between 2008 and 2016. The coal industry and its political supporters, including the president of the United States, have argued that a suite of air pollution regulations imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama administration seriously undermined coal companies’ bottom lines, presenting an existential threat to the industry. Under the Trump administration, industry players have lobbied hard for (and sometimes received) financial subsidies and regulatory changes, with the president seemingly all too happy to play the role of the industry’s savior. Stepping back, we consider the extent to which regulations have really led to the decline in demand for coal and how much the coal industry can actually expect to gain from the deregulatory policies of the current administration. To illuminate these questions, we statistically analyze stock market reactions to important events in what critics called the regulatory “war on coal” during the Obama administration. Using an event-study framework that measures abnormal market activity in the immediate wake of these events, we are able to isolate any potential impact of regulatory developments above and beyond market factors, such as secular trends in natural gas prices and market performance as a whole. Surprisingly, we find no systemic evidence consistent with a “war on coal” based on investor assessments of the industry’s financial prospects in the wake of new regulatory developments, even though our methods do find evidence of stock market reactions to other events, such as bankruptcies of other companies. Coal firms’ investors—the very actors with financial stakes in understanding the impact of regulation on the industry—appear to have behaved as if they never actually bought into the regulatory “war on coal” narrative. Our findings are consistent both with broader evidence about the effects of regulation and with an underlying political economy of regulatory scapegoating, according to which actors in a declining industry prefer to blame regulation rather than competitive factors for their businesses’ decline. By calling attention to the pervasive incentives for scapegoating and cheap talk by politicians seeking to be saviors, we offer an account that can explain the mismatch between our findings and the rhetoric of the “war on coal.” Along the way, our account reinforces how important it is for courts, elected officials, and the public to demand that government agencies base their regulatory decisions on evidence instead of relying on political rhetoric.

Complaints about excessive economic burdens associated with regulation abound in contemporary political and legal rhetoric. In recent years, perhaps nowhere have these complaints been heard as loudly as in the context of U.S. regulations targeting the use of coal to supply power to the nation’s electricity system, as production levels in the coal industry dropped by nearly half between 2008 and 2016. The coal industry and its political supporters, including the president of the United States, have argued that a suite of air pollution regulations imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama administration seriously undermined coal companies’ bottom lines, presenting an existential threat to the industry. Under the Trump administration, industry players have lobbied hard for (and sometimes received) financial subsidies and regulatory changes, with the president seemingly all too happy to play the role of the industry’s savior. Stepping back, we consider the extent to which regulations have really led to the decline in demand for coal and how much the coal industry can actually expect to gain from the deregulatory policies of the current administration. To illuminate these questions, we statistically analyze stock market reactions to important events in what critics called the regulatory “war on coal” during the Obama administration. Using an event-study framework that measures abnormal market activity in the immediate wake of these events, we are able to isolate any potential impact of regulatory developments above and beyond market factors, such as secular trends in natural gas prices and market performance as a whole. Surprisingly, we find no systemic evidence consistent with a “war on coal” based on investor assessments of the industry’s financial prospects in the wake of new regulatory developments, even though our methods do find evidence of stock market reactions to other events, such as bankruptcies of other companies. Coal firms’ investors—the very actors with financial stakes in understanding the impact of regulation on the industry—appear to have behaved as if they never actually bought into the regulatory “war on coal” narrative. Our findings are consistent both with broader evidence about the effects of regulation and with an underlying political economy of regulatory scapegoating, according to which actors in a declining industry prefer to blame regulation rather than competitive factors for their businesses’ decline. By calling attention to the pervasive incentives for scapegoating and cheap talk by politicians seeking to be saviors, we offer an account that can explain the mismatch between our findings and the rhetoric of the “war on coal.” Along the way, our account reinforces how important it is for courts, elected officials, and the public to demand that government agencies base their regulatory decisions on evidence instead of relying on political rhetoric.

The objective of this study is to find out the differences in verbal and non-verbal communication of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in US presidential debate. The study employs qualitative approach to find out the differences in the use of rhetorical strategies by Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. For the analysis of non-verbal communication, the multimodal framework has been applied to find out the differences in non-verbal communication of both candidates. Moreover, the researcher employs Ekman’s theory of FACS and Birdwhistell’s Kinesics to categorize facial expressions and interpret gestures. The sample of this study is the US 2024 Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The data is collected from available televised debate on YouTube channel named as ‘The Wall Street Journal’. The findings show that Kamala uses pathos abundantly. Trump is more likely to use hyperbole. Other rhetorical strategies used by both candidates include ethos, logos, parallelism, repetition and use of adjectives. The analysis of non-verbal communication reveals that Kamala displays expressive facial expressions while Trump is more likely to show serious and less expressive facial expressions. It is concluded from the analysis that Trump uses exaggeration (hyperbole) as rhetorical strategy while kamala makes use of emotional appeal (pathos) as a rhetorical strategy more throughout the debate. Kamala is emotional and feminine; Trump is aggressive and masculine. Their non-verbal communicative patterns display gender differences. The limitation of the study is its small sample of comparing the verbal and non-verbal communication styles of only one male and female politician.

The narrative is “us versus them.” Rightful U.S. citizens versus the invading masses. These contrasting depictions have been a national obsession since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, and his unrelenting verbal war against immigrants. Trump began his presidential bid by targeting Mexican immigrants, and since taking office, he has made rhetoric concerning tough immigration policies a purported top priority for his administration. Trump has and continues to use this sort of theater to create nationalistic fervor amongst U.S. citizens, and to demonize the so-called invasion at our borders. Indeed, Trump’s “us versus them” anti-immigrant political rhetoric likely won him the 2016 presidential election. Thus, this sort of rhetoric can serve as a powerful, if not dangerous, tool. Anthropologist Leo Chavez defines political rhetoric as speech and images “that often rely on emotion-laden messages to ‘accuse, denounce and actually harm people. They can also flatter, promote, and benefit those same people.’” “Political rhetoric as part of the social and cultural environment can [thus create] strong emotions.” President Trump has taken full advantage of political rhetoric with stoking fear “by calling Mexican immigrants drug dealers, criminals, and rapists,” and garnering an almost cult-like following from his supporters. But President Trump is not alone. Across the hemisphere, national leaders have taken a hardline stance on immigration, some even before Trump did. A hemispheric “wall” of rejection is being built to keep the immigrant “other” away.

The prevalence of social media in political campaigns are changing the face of politics in the United States and abroad. The rapid pace at which this change is occurring demands inquiry into the previously unexplored area of unconventional political campaign messaging practices on social media. Investigation of Donald Trump’s use of tweets as rhetorical strategy in the discursive space of Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign revealed a bypass of traditional media and its source verification processes. This circumventing of mainstream media channels facilitated Trump’s deployment of an unchecked ‘broken system’ narrative alleging government corruption and a rigged system. Trump’s tweet discourses tapped into existing feelings of disenfranchisement and disaffection felt by a self-identified politically marginalized segment of society. This study investigates how social media use in political campaigns can serve as a public sphere for contestation of social and political norms. An interdisciplinary theoretical frame comprised of Feenberg’s critical theory of technology, McLuhan’s media ecology, Fraser’s counterpublic spheres, and Iser’s implied reader offer new understandings about the power of anti-establishment discourses and a hybrid discursive space to destabilize governing institutions and redefine social and political identities. Study of Trump’s tweets as rhetorical strategy granted insights into the social and political capacity of alternative truth to undermine the political process. Further, it uncovered the power of social media to awaken and leverage existing political identities for personal political gain.

US presidential election in 2016 had brought Donald Trump to the oval office. Compare to the regime before, Trump would make US approaches to its counterparts more hard and firm. In this context, Trump would possibly raise the conflict tense towards China and Islamic World since the US would tend to utilise hard rather than soft power. Trump never pictured clearly his foreign policy direction, but he indicated to prefer isolationism and protectionism. He did not have foreign policy record so that US foreign policy would be very relying on Trump’s rhetorical campaigns. The eccentric leadership of US President Donald Trump is a unique global phenomena which very interesting to be discussed.

(2006). The Language of Democracy: Political Rhetoric in the United States and Britain, 1790–1900 by Andrew W. Robertson Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005. 264 pp. American Journalism: Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 179-180.

SummaryWith the rapid development of computer software and hardware technology and network technology, aiming at the limitations of the traditional image compression standards and the deficiencies of the existing computer desktop image compression methods. By analyzing the characteristics of computer desktop image, according to the characteristics of desktop compression, a compression scheme based on high efficiency video coding (HEVC) and color clustering is proposed, which divides blocks into text/graphics blocks, natural image blocks and mixed blocks based on the features of histogram information and texture information of blocks. In block division and classification, an adaptive dynamic block classification algorithm is proposed which is different from the traditional block partitioning. Compared with the traditional method, the new block classification algorithm can save the code stream and improve the classification accuracy.

Risk management for hazardous chemicals. Adverse health consequences of their use and the limitations of traditional control standards.

This study examined how different lighting characteristics of conventional and eco-friendly lighting and environmental conditions, particularly snow cover, influenced the luminous environment and, in relation to that, pedestrian perception of faces on footpaths. The analysis was based on a dataset comprising both subjective evaluations and objective measurements. The spatial and directional light field above a footpath was measured for the two types of road lighting, of which the “eco-centric” luminaire had lower light levels and reduced blue-light component, under snowy and non-snowy conditions. Snow cover significantly increased light diffuseness and density, resulting in more uniform light and higher subjective ratings. Also, face visibility ratings were generally higher and more uniform, while non-snowy conditions led to more pronounced differences between positions and luminaire types. Regression analysis revealed that vertical illuminance at eye height was the strongest predictor of perceived facial friendliness and well-lightedness, and contributed to more favorable ratings for the environment lighting too. The eco-centric luminaire was found to positively influence face lighting ratings but received lower ratings for environmental visibility. Increased horizontal illuminance did not consistently result in enhanced subjective evaluations, which points to limitations of traditional illuminance-based lighting standards, often considering horizontal illuminance at ground level as one of the main metrics. The "social light field" concept emphasizes a holistic approach to urban lighting design that integrates social perception and environmental sustainability by considering the distribution of the actual, resulting light throughout the urban space, especially vertical illuminance at the face and its effects on visual appearance, as well as contributing interactions with the environment and materials in it.

Multi-objective optimization of high performance concrete columns under compressive loading with potential applications for sustainable earthquake-resilient structures and infrastructures