Failure at its Finest, Supposedly
Iran Nuclear Deal: Bob Corker, a United States Senator, took to discussing the Iran nuclear deal. He, rather blatantly, shows how he disagrees with the deal. Corker takes a condescending tone while discussing Iran and the Obama administration showing how he believes them both to be incompetent. He uses a casual patronizing undertone while discussing the Obama administration and cites examples relating to Iran that show President Obama in a negative light in terms of decisiveness and competence, which shows how he believes that Obama should not be trusted to make a good decision for the entire United States regarding Iran. He also uses phrases that cast a negative light on Iran and the deal itself, implying that he thinks …show more content…
This, with his most likely targeted American audience, would cause strong feelings of distrust toward Iran and would help to sway the general American populace to his side of the matter. Further, Corker discusses how Iran is the home of a significant portion of the world’s terrorism which could gain him more support of the American people due to the fact that the United States would essentially be sponsoring more terrorism. It is essentially a scare tactic to get Americans to think that the Iran deal will cause more bad then good. If Americans feel that Iran may be usurping the United States in power, they would be more inclined to be against the Iran deal that would be giving the Iranians even more power, so Corker plays off of these emotions and makes it seem like, if the Iran deal passes, the United States may lose some of its power to Iran. Corker also uses statistics, such as how much money the United States would be giving Iran with the deal, to further support that he believes the Iran deal is a negative thing. Through his tone, use of pathos and logos, and his choice of phrases, Corker shows what he thinks of the Iran deal and tries to gain support for his side of the deal
Iran Nuclear Deal: Bob Corker, a United States Senator, took to discussing the Iran nuclear deal. He, rather blatantly, shows how he disagrees with the deal. Corker takes a condescending tone while discussing Iran and the Obama administration showing how he believes them both to be incompetent. He uses a casual patronizing undertone while discussing the Obama administration and cites examples relating to Iran that show President Obama in a negative light in terms of decisiveness and competence, which shows how he believes that Obama should not be trusted to make a good decision for the entire United States regarding Iran. He also uses phrases that cast a negative light on Iran and the deal itself, implying that he thinks …show more content…
This, with his most likely targeted American audience, would cause strong feelings of distrust toward Iran and would help to sway the general American populace to his side of the matter. Further, Corker discusses how Iran is the home of a significant portion of the world’s terrorism which could gain him more support of the American people due to the fact that the United States would essentially be sponsoring more terrorism. It is essentially a scare tactic to get Americans to think that the Iran deal will cause more bad then good. If Americans feel that Iran may be usurping the United States in power, they would be more inclined to be against the Iran deal that would be giving the Iranians even more power, so Corker plays off of these emotions and makes it seem like, if the Iran deal passes, the United States may lose some of its power to Iran. Corker also uses statistics, such as how much money the United States would be giving Iran with the deal, to further support that he believes the Iran deal is a negative thing. Through his tone, use of pathos and logos, and his choice of phrases, Corker shows what he thinks of the Iran deal and tries to gain support for his side of the deal