Bernie’s latest attack is irresponsible and poisonous.
Robby Mook
13529

The Spinning is strong with this one. Or should I say pathetic? You don’t have to support any candidate (as I don’t do, because I’m Dutch and can’t even vote) to see the basic Persuasion techniques used here. I’m not at all an expert, anyone can learn this following some rhetoric classes online, as I did, and I really recommend people do this if they want to choose the best candidate. So let’s see:

Assurance and Distraction: making sure we’re all on the same page here, namely the accusations are false. Why? Well obviously because the fundraising structure is the same as was used when Obama (citing an authority) won. That’s no supportive argument at all, just a distraction, while Mook should be showing us why the accusations are false, not why this is “obviously a phony charge”. He also keeps assuring us Hillary is going to win.

It’s filled with Negative Evaluative language, here’s a list: irresponsible, poisonous, phony, troubling, dwindle toward zero, attacking, get out of hand, unqualified, downward spiral, irresponsible again, undermining. This all accompanied by unsupported arguments or recalling events that have been debunked, like the whole “unqualified” debacle. In other words, Mook’s slanting his way out of this, which indicates how weak these arguments are.

I’m not claiming the accusations are true or false, I’m pointing out the pure persuasion that’s being used here. One might ask why Mook is doing this, in stead of just providing us a good argument why the accusations are false. He wouldn’t have to distract us, but he is, which is very questionable.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.