A Quote by Margaret Hoover

What I hope we will see from [Donald] Trump very quickly is inclusive rhetoric and rhetoric that brings the temperature down and comforts people so that children feel safe going to school.
I can only hope that the Democrats do tone down the rhetoric. The rhetoric has been outrageous: The finger-pointing, the tone, the angst, and the anger directed at Donald Trump, his supporters - really, then, some people react to things like that; people get angry as well, and you fuel the fires.
I do not believe the United States and the Americans are going to let Donald Trump become president... I think the challenge is Donald Trump, with his anti-China rhetoric and with his anti-trade rhetoric, is going to make the job for all of us more difficult going forward.
It's better for candidates to suggest ideas that are responsible, not ones that are incapable of being executed. People are influenced by what their leaders tell them. And bringing the level of rhetoric down brings the temperature down.
Trump's rhetoric is undermining America's credibility, undermining America's leadership and strength in Europe, even without him being president. The rhetoric itself is very damaging. Obviously, if you were to try to implement any of that rhetoric as president, it would be catastrophic for America's interests.
The people you see in Nigeria today have always lived as neighbors in the same space for as long as we can remember. So it's a matter of settling down, lowering the rhetoric, the level of hostility in the rhetoric is too high.
We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.
When there's no push back against Islamophobic rhetoric, people see that as tacit endorsement of anti-Islamic rhetoric.
Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric. But if you can bring these people down with comedy, they stand no chance.
And we need a president who is a uniter, not a divider; who can lower the temperature, not raise the temperature. And I wish President Trump would spend more time trying to go beyond his immediate base to reach people, and use the presidential microphone to try to bring people together, instead of the rhetoric that seems to divide us.
This rhetoric that Donald Trump is used is very consistent with rhetoric he's used on the campaign trail for a long time now. He'll always say - and you look - you can look at the past transcripts of his old speeches. He'll always say, I'm in favor of trade; trade is great, but these deals - NAFTA, TPP, the South Korean Free Trade Agreement - are all terrible.
[Donald] Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto, who has in the past compared Trump`s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
Rhetoric completes the tools of learning. Dialectic zeros in on the logic of things, of particular systems of thought or subjects. Rhetoric takes the next grand step and brings all these subjects together into one whole.
It's to come up with a deal that both sides feel they can live with. And I think that that's probably where we're going to end up. I think that Donald Trump has people working for him who are ultimately deal-makers. And the Canadians are the same way. They're grownups about this. That's why you saw the prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau not respond to Trump with the same rhetoric, but to talk about the strength of the relationship and the desire for a deal.
I really deplore the tone of his campaign and the inflammatory rhetoric that he is using to divide people. I don`t know that Donald Trump has any boundaries at all.
When Donald Trump was first elected, there was a lot of fear of a trade war. They listened to Trump's rhetoric on the campaign. Oh, we're going to put a 45 percent tariff on China, a 35 percent tariff on Mexico. We haven't seen any of that.
At some point the rhetoric runs out, and we have to ask ourselves, 'Are we simply going to standby while somebody's rhetoric is good, but their actions are so lousy?' Are we going to stand up for that?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!