Group items tagged

This article highlights the phrases that Clinton used during the presidential debate to attract black voters. Phrases like "systematic racism", "implicit bias", "black bias", and "racist" were used to identify with the black voters. Many viewers were excited that she was facing such issues and was tackling them head on because according to this article, "A big chunk of Americans - not just people of color - want our leadership to talk about race, and to talk about policing the criminal justice system and the role that race plays in those institutions." As a presidential candidate, Clinton has been forced to become more skilled with the word choice. Here, she attempts to appeal herself to different groups of people to attract votes.

Hillary CLinton's change in body language has played an important role in her turnaround. That's something that women notice more than men. But, as research shows, men as well as women make split-second, and often long-lasting, judgments about others based on how they carry themselves -- before even hearing them speak.

Tim Kaine, Democratic VP nominee, uses Spanish during his speeches to appeal to Hispanic voters.

This article is about how Hillary Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, uses his bilingualism to bring diversity to the Clinton campaign. It is believed that Hillary partly chose Kaine because of his Spanish speaking skills to connect with a different demographic, the Hispanics. During his convention speech Kaine wiped out his Spanish and inspired the listeners to roar into cheers. He spoke about the many Hispanic values such as family, hard work and faith lock in his audience.

While watching the first presidential debate, take note of Lester Holt and each presidential candidate's body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, poise of presentation, grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure use. Additionally, performing a fact check on each candidate's remarks should also help you to distinguish a solid foundation of who to vote for: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Let's face it: There are some things we just can't face. Life's too short. Somebody's too sensitive. And the subject - whatever it is, although lately it's been whatever - is too third-rail dangerous. Border walls, charter schools, closing Guantánamo, global warming, that Al Jazeera documentary claiming Peyton Manning used performance-enhancing drugs, Hillary Clinton, #OscarsSoWhite: Why bring any of this up?

Hillary Clinton, no surprise, sounds the most feminine of the candidates on the campaign trail, commonly using phrases like "incredibly grateful" and "open our hearts." More surprising, the second-most feminine speaker is Donald Trump, who often talks about "my beautiful family" and "lasting relationships." But unlike Mrs.

Jennifer Sclafani, Georgetown University linguist, examines the idiolect of Trump. Everyone possesses an idiolect: an idiosyncratic form of language that is unique to an individual. Trump's idiolect seems particularly polarizing. Critics might decry Trump thusly: "He doesn't make any sense." "He uses a lot of small words." "His speeches are non-substantive." On the other hand, supporters see Trump as "authentic," "relatable," and "consistent." He's a "straight shooter" who "doesn't mince words." So how does one idiolect produce such polarizing evaluations? It has to do with the precarious connections between linguistic form and meaning. The relationship between the two, as the anthropologist Elinor Ochs describes, is non-exclusive, indirect, and constitutive. Put simply, there are multiple meanings associated with any given linguistic feature, and the connection between form and meaning is a two-way street Whichever meaning is activated by a specific pronunciation, or any other aspect of your idiolect, has everything to do with context: Where are you? Who is your audience? What is your purpose? What image are you trying to project? These are factors that candidates are always taking into account as they put forth their presidential selves on the campaign trail. Tailoring their speech to the context, like when a candidate takes on a drawl while campaigning in the South, has been grounds for being labeled "inconsistent" or "fake," as we've seen with Hillary Clinton, even though this type of linguistic accommodation is a perfectly natural feature of everyone's idiolect.

Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking. But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. A whopping 70 percent of Trump's statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the politician Trump dubbed "crooked," Hillary Clinton: Just 26 percent of her statements were deemed false.) For decades, researchers have been wrestling with the nature of falsehood: How does it arise? How does it affect our brains? Can we choose to combat it? The answers aren't encouraging for those who worry about the national impact of a reign of untruth over the next four, or eight, years. Lies are exhausting to fight, pernicious in their effects and, perhaps worst of all, almost impossible to correct if their content resonates strongly enough with people's sense of themselves, which Trump's clearly do.