When a political candidate speaks, the words he utters are taken seriously.
The Washington Post recently ran an article entitled When a Politician Speak, Their Words Are Taken Seriously.
It was written by Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator who has been the subject of a slew of criticism from liberals and others over his anti-Israel rhetoric.
While it’s true that the candidate’s words are often taken as being taken literally, there is an important distinction to be made here.
One, the candidate is not speaking as a representative of his own party.
Two, the comments are often not taken as “totally” serious.
Three, there are legitimate questions about the sincerity of the candidate.
This is a key point, because the article is one of the few that directly asks what the “truth” is about the presidential candidate’s position on Israel.
When a politician uses words that are taken as a threat, that threat is taken seriously, even if they may not be.
That said, it’s important to note that when we hear politicians use words as threats, they often do so as part of a larger pattern of political rhetoric that is based on the fear of losing an election.
A lot of the rhetoric coming out of both parties is based around the fear that they’ll lose elections, and as a result, they will try to make it seem as though it’s the other party that is the one that is threatening their election.
The article is particularly interesting because it’s one of several recent articles that take a look at how presidential candidates use rhetoric in an attempt to win elections.
We’ve seen this in the debates, and in the primaries as well.
But what about in politics?
In the article, Shapiro discusses how presidential campaigns are often based around rhetoric that focuses on the perceived threat of losing a particular election.
The article discusses how candidates use phrases like “put the world on notice” or “put Iran on notice”, all in the context of losing elections.
The goal, according to Shapiro, is to make the opponent believe that they’re threatening to lose the election, so that their opponents will feel that they need to respond to that threat.
The idea behind this strategy is that the political discourse becomes increasingly polarized and the stakes are high, so as to make voters feel that their party is the only one that has the right answer.
So, as a candidate, the goal is to create the fear, so the candidate can be seen as the one who is “putting the world back on notice”.
That, of course, is the real goal, because if the only thing that’s truly “on notice” is the candidate being “put on notice,” then no amount of rhetoric can make the issue go away.
The article also examines the rhetoric used by the two candidates to make their cases for and against the Iran nuclear deal.
For instance, they focus on the “threat of nuclear proliferation” and the “nuclear threat” of Iran, which are phrases that are often used in the Republican Party as a justification for the deal, but which are taken quite literally by many Democrats as threats to the United States.
Shapiro describes how the “nukes in our backyard” rhetoric was used to scare Democrats into voting against the deal.
“While the GOP’s primary goal is usually to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the rhetoric surrounding the deal itself was also used to create a climate of fear in Democrats, who were fearful of a potential nuclear confrontation,” he writes.
He explains that the rhetoric was also a “threat” because it was used by “many Democrats who have been critical of the nuclear deal, and by the White House itself, which used the rhetoric as a way to drum up support for the agreement.”
The article continues to highlight how rhetoric can have serious consequences, including the rhetoric of Donald Trump.
“He uses the threat of nuclear war to push his position and make people believe that he is the man to defeat ISIS, or that he’s the one with the most moral authority,” Shapiro writes.
“Trump has repeatedly expressed his support for Israel and has regularly cited the nuclear agreement as an example of a good deal.
In the past few weeks, Trump has also repeated these talking points in interviews and tweets, making his supporters believe that Israel is the most powerful country in the world, that Iran is the greatest threat to the world and that Trump will be the greatest champion of the Jews.”
Shapsiro concludes that these statements have caused a “huge amount of anxiety” among Democrats, and that the threat to Democrats “from Trump is real, and it is not going away.”
So there you have it: The rhetoric used in political campaigns has real consequences, and when a candidate uses it to try to win an election, it is taken as seriously as it would be if