Ann Coulter intended audience is the conservatives and the libertarians that support
trump. The author's credibility is very
high she has been writing books about liberals lies and the actual truth about
how the media reports it and what their biases are. Her argument is that Hillary
advantage in the election is the media, and Trump's
advantage is the issues that he puts forth. The argument previously stated is
the claim of the article. The evidence that Ann Coulter brings to the table is that there are various popular positions that
trump takes that most other republican candidates would not take, that would not have been a boon to them on the campaign election
trail. Hillary Clinton has the media
focused on the untruth of the opposition side of sex acts “adultery and rape”.
As stated “When the last name of the
perp is "Kennedy" or "Clinton," they're not interested.
When it's "the Duke lacrosse team": Guilty.” She talks about
how they don’t do journalism to find out if for example the lacrosse team actual
raped the black hookers. If the scandal involves people who are with the
liberal media, they are simply ignored and swept under the rug, But if the
scandal involves people on the other side of the isle they will make stuff up,
or pay people to say things to put blame on the other candidate. They have done
one of the two things that I have stated before as she has put out examples, in
her article. The other is speculation, with a high amount of evidence behind
it. Her logic is clearly presented , with
examples of how the mainstream media is against trump and is for Hillary. She provides
many examples of how this happens .
Friday, October 21, 2016
Friday, October 7, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/opinion/the-supreme-court-revisits-insider-trading.html?ref=topics&_r=0 is the link for The article The supreme court revisits insider trading.
The author's intended audience is the one for the New
York times. The New York times is a very left leaning news source. The author's
credibility comes from a wide range of the people that sit on the board that co-writes these articles, that have a variety
of backgrounds in the journalistic field. On top of this, they have a range of ages and experiences in life. In which
that can give them credibility. The boards
argument, and first part of their argument is there claim is that “If Mr. Salman’s conviction is overturned,
any insider could freely disclose confidential information to relatives who
could then trade on it, and so long as the insider didn’t ask for any money in
return, no one would be liable”. (quote from the article). The second part of their
argument was there evidence of this claim. In my
opinion, the evidence is not really there and is more implied, nothing
that I read had given any sort of hard statics or evidence about what would happen
if the suit went in the favor of
Mr. Salomon’s side. The third part of their augment is
there logic, I looked and looked everywhere for it. The only logic I found
was one based on assumptions and emotion
which is not logic. Logic applies statics, scientific studies, and hard fact
based evidence. This article had none, it was a barren desert of logic with no
water in sight. Here’s just an example of
that “logic” “They also say that “But absolving Mr. Salman would set a
precedent that would make the fight to stop illegal insider trading even harder.”
How do they know that absolving Mr.
Salman would make it harder to stop illegal trading? Do they present any
statics from cases in the same subject from other courts and what happened if
they absolved some one of their insider trading charges, no they don’t? They don’t
even present statistics or any sort of hard evidence what happened to people who
did get convicted what happened to insider trading. They could have presented
evidence other countries courts for comparisons for what might happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)