Conor Friedersdorf approaches the subject of Donald Trump's alleged association with Russia with a serious voice and skeptical tone in his article for The Atlantic. While he does stress that he wants to stay politically neutral and is willing to accept the possibility of Trump's innocence in certain specific circumstances, Friedersdorf describes in great detail how Trump and his administration have lost his trust. He feels very strongly about the subject, describing Trump's claims that he has nothing to do with Russia as "bullshit" (Friedersdorf). Other loaded words used by Friedersdorf are found where he describes "the possibility of a constitutional crisis," (Friedersdorf) and "nefarious plot" (Friedersdorf). The words "crisis," (Friedersdorf) and "nefarious," (Friedersdorf) characterize the untrustworthy and stealthy asks of the president. Clearly, despite asserting a lack of bias in the beginning of the article, Friedersdorf has strong, negative feelings towards Donald Trump. He is able to bring appeal to logic into play to further support his point, as he provides multiple quotes and interviews that give insight to different points of view. For instance, Trump is quoted as saying, "Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia," which at least provides somewhat of a counterargument to Friedersdorf's accusation, but is later used against him when there is evidence that he and his party have had meeting with Russian leaders. Friedersdorf even references his lack of tax returns to further paint a rather ugly picture of Trump. Friedersdorf does comment that he finds "establishment Republicans and hawkish Democrats like Hillary Clinton terrifying," (Friedersdorf) on the subject of Russian conflict, saying he does not mind some of the Republican Party's decisions on the scandalous matter. Still, he describes the situation as "very odd" (Friedersdorf). The overall purpose of this article is to inform, expose, and most importantly, make readers think and seek out more information on the matter. The author talks about controversial topics, and even though it is obvious to detect which side he leans towards, he effectively covers facts and input from both sides of the argument to piece together an alarming puzzle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |