Short Version Presidential Speech

Ladies and gentlemen, today, I am running for the president of the United States as an independent candidate. 

After we all see, both the Democrats and Republican candidates have reveal their weaknesses: Donald Trump is not only accused for being unprofessional as a politician, and a being sexist and racist as well; on the other hand, Hillary Clinton, who has been called a “liar”, is surrounded by conspiracies and the email incident. Considering from every angle, both of the candidates representing the major parties are not good enough as the president of the United States. So I ask you to consider an option: vote for me, an independent candidate, to be your president.

Immigration is one of the key factors that keeps our country alive. It was the generations and generations of immigrants to the New World that made America a great country, and I promise you it still will be. Unlike the other candidates who restrict the immigrants shutting our financial and intellectual resources, I will encourage immigration. I will encourage our people to apply the "new manifest destiny," to explore the undiscovered land in our economy. To do this, we need the help from immigrants.

America is a great country, a country that everyone looks up upon. It is also undoubted that we have serious problems. But, no matter how difficult it is, I will help us get through it. Please, vote for me, so everyone will always be looking upon us. Thank you.

Independent Candidate Speach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jxr-y-tc2E&feature=youtu.be

Speech as Independent Presidential Candidate

Ladies and gentlemen, today, I am running for the president of the United States as an independent candidate. 

After the viewing the three presidential debates, both the Democrats and Republican candidates have reveal their weaknesses: Donald Trump is not only accused for being unprofessional as a politician, and a being sexist and racist as well; on the other hand, Hillary Clinton, who has been called a “liar”, is surrounded by conspiracies and the email incident. Considering from every angle, both of the candidates representing the major parties are not good enough as the president of the United States. As a result, I ask you to consider an option that has not ever being considered in the history of United States — I ask you to vote for me, an independent candidate, to be your president.

I believe you already know that, in order to attract votes, it is a common strategies for go to extremes on political opinions. However, that is not the option. I, unlike them, choose to adopt the pragmatic means.

The bad economic situation has already brought enough pressure to our middle class families, and overtaxation only made it worse. I am gonna change that. However, instead of dropping the taxation by an outrageous proportion, I will change the structure of taxation. I will take the burden from the poor, and put the tax on the business tycoons. I will encourage small businesses by subsiding them, which will boost our economy and keep it active.

America has the one of the strongest military power in the world thank to the massive amount of military funds. I will keep it this way. However, the great military power did not give us positive feedback in the hands of former government. ISIS is still thriving, and the Middle East is still uneasy. This does not deserve the effort we put in and the countless American soldiers lives. I will go in and destroy terrorist to ashes. Upon that, I will help the people build a government they want.

America is a great country, a country that everyone looks up upon. It is also undoubted that we have serious problems. But, no matter how difficult it is, I will help us get through it. Please, vote for me, so everyone will always be looking upon us. Thank you.

Comments on the third presidential debate

- Trump called Clinton "a nasty woman," which is unbearable because this is simply not respectful.
- Trump refused to accept the election's outcome, which is one way to admit that he is loosing.
- Trump said unwise things like "Putin would rather dealing with me," and Clinton attacked immediately "because he want a puppet as the president of USA."
- Trump almost lost his temper. This is a disaster in a debate.

Early in their careers, whilst Bob Dylan’s roots were deeply folk, John Lennon and The Beatles were ingrained in pop/rock n roll.
While Dylan’s expertise was lyrics (as it always has been) Lennon and McCartney were very much focused on catchy tunes.
As they moved into the 1970’s, in some respects a lot changed. John Lennon had a completely new way of life away from The Beatles, with such albums as Plastic Ono Band and Imagine he seemed to prove his superiority over his ex-song writing pal Paul McCartney. Lennon had progressed past his youth; his songs were more meaningful with more significant lyrics.
After Lennon was shot, Dylan entered the 1980’s not being able to maintain lyrics and melody and proved to be a 10 year long writer’s block, certainly the opinion of most. Infact it is only now, after minimal work in the 1990’s, he seems to be back on top.
more prolific and consistent than Bob Dylan

quantity does not mean anything.
nobel peace prize
weird? 

3 funny topics

- Bob Dylan v. John Lennon
- Woody Allen v. Quentin Tarantino
- Cats v. Chicago

Analysis of Second Presidential Debate

The second presidential debate from last Sunday was far more intense than the first one. This time, both of the Candidates were allowed to walk on the stage, which added more factors to the debate including body language, changing position on stage, and interaction with the audience. 

Both of the candidates was far more aggressive than the last time. They utilized a lot of ad hominem fallacy, attacking each other about their personal life instead of discussing the policies they are about to apply if they were elected president. Hillary Clinton once again said that Donald Trump "lives in an alternative reality", while Donald Trumps attacks her for deleting her emails. The application of ad hominem fallacy is a sword of Damocles -- by using it, the candidates put both of their own opinions in potential danger. While they attacked each others personalities and moralities, they were not really pointing out the flaws in their opponents'  ideologies. As a result, the audience would not be capable of understanding what is they advantages of their own methods. Moreover, making the audience believe that their opponents were bad is not going to cause much effective difference: the candidates probably did not realize that one do not to be morally flawless to be a good president. According to the Prince by Machiavelli, a good ruler sometimes have to neglect the disciplines of morality in order to rule the country in a better way. Ad hominem is a very bad strategies, which utilized a lot by both candidates.

Another fallacy which was employed by both candidates was avoiding the questions. For more than once both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tried to dodge the questions, coming up with somethings which sound similarly nature or make sense in someway, but are not logically correct. For example, when they were asked to give an opinion on what is good on the other candidate, Hillary Clinton went directly to talk about her appreciation to Donald Trump’s daughter — which is completely irrelevant to what a person Trump is. (Or may be it has a little bit to do with this because this indicates that Trump is a good father, but once again being a good father has nothing to do with being a good president.) Consequently, Clinton “wittily” dodged the question without pointing out any of Donald Trumps strength. However, what is not so witty is that she did not realize is that she dodged the question so obvious that it only took credibility down of her. Because she essentially refused to regard her opponent’s advantages seriously, the voters probably will not trust her judgement and capability as a president any more. On the other hand, Donald Trump, when he was asked the same question of what his opponent’s advantage was, he said that Hillary Clinton never gave up and fight for the things that she believe in. This might not be the perfect answer, but at least is over surpassed what was done by Hillary Clinton.

A good thing, if I have to admit, did by both candidates is that they were both concentrated and both responded adeptly and confidently. On stage, they appear like leaders. Even if they fail to be elected president, they will still be leaders in their own field with the quality of confidence and assertiveness they possess. 

Notes on Second Debate

- This debate, comparing to the first one, is more free-style because both candidates are allowed to walk around.

- They are both dodging a lot of questions. What's worse is that they are so obvious. For example, Hillary Clinton talked about Trumps kids when she was asked to talk about Trumps advantages.

- Both of them are very aggressive. Trump is more outrageous by saying Hillary Clinton should be "in jail." It is really a bad strategy for them to attack on each other(e.g. Hillary's email). Audience expect to listen to their policies instead of what kind of person they are. One do not have be a flawless person to run a country.

- I am a little bit disappointed. I remember the debate by Obama from last presidential campaign. In terms of debating skills, he is way more professional.

Rest of the world no strict rules.
Family rather than government.
Kids won't be so curious because they have access to it.
Decrease unsafe drinking activity. Starting at a young age, young adult will not be provoked to drink and drive when they get the license.

Lower the risk of breaking the law to get a drink.
The teenagers will drink no matter what the law is.
Drinking is an enjoyable activity. Eliminating the age to drink will decrease the alcohol induced injuries.
Eliminating the drinking age reflects unique demographic
Good for economy.

5 most famous debate topics

1. Homework is a waste of time

2. Assisting suicide should be legalized

3. Legalization the sale of human organs

4. Advertising is harmful and thus should be banned

5. Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children

- Appeal to Force: uses force to threat the other which is irrelevant to logic
- Red Herring: bring up irrelevant things to disturb audience from the original issue
- Slippery Slope: lead to a bigger topic(exaggeration) with every step that taken.
- Appeal to popularity(bandwagon): say what people like.(everybody support it, so it is true)
- False Cause: reason does not explain the fact.

LOGIC FALLACIES

Circular reasoning
- AKA paradoxical thinking, circular argument, circular cause and consequence, circular definition
- Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.
- Logical Form:

X is true because of Y.

Y is true because of X.

- Example #2:

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.  This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000.  Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate.  You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.”  Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.

Exception: Some philosophies state that we can never escape circular reasoning because the arguments always come back to axioms or first principles, but in those cases, the circles are very large and do manage to share useful information in determining the truth of the proposition.

Tip: Do your best to avoid circular arguments, as it will help you reason better because better reasoning is often a result of avoiding circular arguments.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning


This is a interesting logic trick when someone uses a reason which is based on its own fact to explain the very fact. It is often very hard to detect because they might sound logical. This is called circular reasoning.