Critique of Andrew O'Reilly on Kavanaugh, says he'll get to the bottom of It

The person who wrote this article is Andrew O'Reilly and, the main argument was that the accusation of Brett Kavanaugh was a hoax.  Brett Kavanaugh is a DC Circuit Court Judge being nominated for supreme court justice and, he is accused of is sexually assaulting a Dr. Blasey Ford when he was a senior in high school. He says that the accusation is false and has another politician to back him up. For example, in paragraph six the quote, 'this is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics' from Graham. This shows based on who the writer quotes what he stands for. To attract a more conservative audience they gave Kavanaugh's and Graham's perspective more. This affects the contents because It becomes more one-sided. He relies mainly on what Graham says and goes forward with that.  This is not supported with facts or evidence because he heavily relies on what this one person says.  There is not any solid document that is not biased that he shows that proves that Brett Kavanaugh is innocent. This argument was not successful, nor did it convince me at all because the evidence is very weak and not very useful in this case.  My beliefs are still the same that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty. If I did accept his argument I most likely would have rethought about my beliefs.  The political significance is it shows that Brett Kavanagh is being rushed into a lifetime position without a proper investigation based off dr. Ford’s allegations.  The difference that this article made to my understanding to the way that the political world works is that it does not matter how bad the allegations are people want to rush things.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Reason Why I'm Unsatisfied With The Government

The federal government is not doing a good job with gun control.  The reason is that America is having a more frequent mass shooting. This is a bad thing because it puts millions of lives in danger. Despite having many Americans for gun control (between 50-60%) the US somehow still has weak gun laws. This is a bad thing because the American peoples’ voice is not being heard. To get a gun the only thing that could potentially prevent an unfit person to get a gun is if they were charged a felony. Most people who harm themselves with guns got them legally. These are the people who are likely to have mental health issues. Even though the federal law states no one who was involuntarily admitted to the psychiatric hospital can own a gun, there are ways to hide or avoid it. This results in loopholes that can be exploited. For example, someone can be diagnosed with a serious mental illness but not take any steps to get better. When they are at their lowest point, they can hide it, buy a gun a
Read more

What The Government Should Do About Birth Right Citizenship

We need to keep birthright citizenship. It is a constitutional right to make sure that children who were born with foreign parents stand a chance to become citizens. If we repeal the 14th amendment, we would have more “illegal aliens”. The reason is that a lot of natural born parents don’t really know how to obtain citizenship for their child if they are not natural born. The schools fail to teach children how people who are not natural born obtain citizenship. Most of the “illegal immigrants” are legally trying to get asylum. If we get rid of birthright citizenship it could hurt the child and the family in the long run. The chances of that newborn child getting citizenship would be lower because the parents are probably not literate in English enough. Even if the parents are not citizens the newborn did not choose their fate, so it would not be fair in the long run for the kid. The thing that can really hurt children with American parents is that if they were born outside of US terri
Read more

My Commentary of My College's Work

In  Libertarian Lad y, the author Tonni Hammler is making the argument. It appeared in a section of a blog. The argument was that the wall that Donald Trump is trying to build is imprudent and a waste of money. To get the audience's attention she uses a lot of exclamation marks and gives the reader some mind-blowing facts. This could affect the content because it makes it very powerful. The basic argument is that America should not build a wall between the US and Mexico. The assumption that she relies on is that the wall is too expensive. It states that instead of using that money on the wall we could spend it on more important things such as helping the homeless. The important terms are clearly defined in this piece. Even though she clearly expresses her emotions, her claims have been backed by a good amount of evidence. The argument was successful and it did convince me. Now I think that it's a bad idea because it's a waste of money and because "illegal" immigra
Read more