Recent studies have shown that skepticism about human-caused climate change has increased among people in Europe and the United States. Researchers have tried to examine the causes behind this trend. What some of the studies have found is that there could be connectivity between populistic and nationalistic ideologies and climate skepticism. The purpose of this study has been to, through an idea analysis, examine the American president Donald Trump to see what type of climate sceptic he is according to the typology created by Rahmstorf. Furthermore, the study seeks to understand if the scepticism could be linked to the theories of populism and nationalism. The study is based on interviews done by newspapers and tv-shows but also tweets written by Trump. The study found that Trump’s climate scepticism could be classified into all of Rhamstorf’s different levels of skepticism. It also found that Trump’s argumentation in the interviews and in his tweets could, in accordance with earlier research, be linked to populism and nationalism.

The US presidential election of 2016 between the republican Donald Trump and the democrat Hillary Clinton was special in the aspect of the fierce tone between the two candidates, largely by personal attacks and how the media to a large extent focused on this rather than political issues. Many evangelical leaders decided to endorse Trump, even though their earlier outspoken criticism toward Trumps previously controversial statements about women, immigrants and minorities. In six articles this case study examines how the authors from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal frame the relationship between Trump and evangelical leaders during the 2016 US election. This is done by using a framing analysis and the categories: actors, characteristics, motives and goals which help me to answer a couple of analysis questions and latter put it into context of Snow and Benfords (1988) three tasks of framing. In this way I can answer the first research question: ”How is the relationship between Donald Trump and the evangelical leaders represented in the selected cases and how can this be understood by using Snow and Benfords (1988) three tasks of framing; diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing?” The second research question “How can the framing of the relationship between Trump and the evangelical leaders be understood according to Hjarvards (2012) theory medialization of religion with a focus on media as language?” visualizes the attitudes and the shaping of frames contained in the articles. The study concludes that the three tasks of framing help assign causation, identify reasons, strategies and solutions to the phenomenon that is framed by the authors of the articles, but also how Trump and evangelicals are framed by the authors to rationalize the defined measures. The results show that the authors of the articles mainly focus on Trumps motives and goals to gain support of evangelical leaders vice versa the leaders which want to gain ground and influence the politics Trump is going to convey. This can be seen in both NYT and the WSJ articles through the framing of Trump and his fierce tone toward Clinton and her campaign. It is also recurrent that the authors of the article describe how Trump uses a language aimed at the Christian right and its leaders to promise them to pursue a value-conservative policy that favor them.

We outline four connections between xenophobia and punitiveness toward criminals in a national sample of Americans. First, among self-identified whites xenophobia is more predictive of punitiveness than specific forms of racial animus. Second, xenophobia and punitiveness are strongly connected among whites, but are only moderately and weakly related among black and Hispanic Americans, respectively. Third, among whites substantial proportions of the variance between sociodemographic, political, and religious predictors of punitiveness are mediated by levels of xenophobia. Finally, xenophobia is the strongest overall predictor of punitiveness among whites. Overall, xenophobia is an essential aspect of understanding public punitiveness, particularly among whites.

This research paper studied the first two weeks after President Donald Trump allegedly called African countries “shithole countries” in a bi-partisan meeting on immigration. It explored the frames and emerging themes used by the media when covering the incident and the surrounding issues. Using the framing theory as a theoretical framework, the study examined the six identified news frames through qualitative content analysis. The six frames used in the coverage of the “shithole countries” incident are racial, conflict, consequences, morality, human interest, and policy. The study examined articles from four news sources that lean liberal, conservative, central-liberal, and central conservative. The study indicated that the four news sources all used five of the six frames, as the Wall Street Journal did not use the morality frame at all. The most used frame was the human interest frame, followed by conflict and consequences. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal used the conflict frame the most. And CNN and FOX used the consequences frame the most.

This study aims to show how much space Donald Trump and Stefan Löfven get in the digital edition of the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet. To investigate this, a quantitative content study was used, counting the number of articles in which they appear between January 21st 2017 and July 21st 2017. In total 967 news articles were included in the study where articles appearing in the entertainment and sports section were excluded as well as editorials and columns.   In the articles we counted the amount of words and how long the quotes of the two persons were. We also counted how many articles in which both Donald Trump and Stefan Löfven appear and how the quotes were distributed between them. To count the articles we created a coding scheme with rules for interpretation.   The result of the study was that Donald Trump appeared more frequently in the tabloid than Stefan Löfven. This tells us that Aftonbladet priorities news about Donald Trump over news about Stefan Löfven which can be explained by globalisation, which is one of the theories used in this study, along with the theory of news values. However it was also clear that procentually Stefan Löfven was quoted more than Donald Trump. This can mean that even though globalisation brings nations across the world closer to each other, the physical distance still has a factor in what news sources appear in the news media.

In September 2017, the Trump administration announced its plan to rescind The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA). Since then, program recipients, who have in recent years assumed the name "Dreamers," have fought back. This thesis explores how Dreamers use storytelling as a means of articulating individual and collective identity as a form of resistance in the sociopolitical climate that is Trump's America.

No description available.

This bachelor thesis quantitatively researches every tweet Donald Trump has written in february 2017 from his personal Twitter account @realDonaldTrump. This particular period was chosen because it was the first full month that Trump was president of the United States of America. That's why it would be interesting to examine his tweets in his new official role as president. The purpose of this study is to find out how Donald Trump used language and his content on Twitter during his first month as president in 2017. What time during the day Donald Trump published his tweets and how his tweets were received by his readers is also of interest to this study. To do this the study uses theories about power as an interactionfield, representation and encoding and decoding. This study relies on a quantitative content analasis as a method and through it Trumps tweets were gathered, compiled and then given a main and a secondary theme. The themes were negative, positive, neutral, political, personal and other. Besides the main and secondary themes, i counted the number of syllables and words Trump used and also how much response he got on the tweets in the form av replies, retweets and likes. The result shows that Trumps negative and political tweets got the most response, mostly in the form of likes. Words that Trump writes more than others are words like fake, news, and media. the result also showed that most of the words Trump writes on Twitter only contains one or two syllables. / Denna studie har kvantitativt undersökt alla Donald Trumps tweets från februari 2017. Dessa tweets härstammar från Trumps personliga twitterkonto @realDonaldTrump. Perioden valdes på grund av det var den första hela månaden som Donald Trump var USA:s president. Därför var det intressant att se hur Trump twittrade som president. Själva syftet med studien är att utifrån teorier om makt som interaktionsfält, representation och encoding och decoding ta reda på hur Donald Trump språkligt och innehållsligt använde Twitter under den första månaden som president 2017. Av intresse är också vilken tid på dygnet Donald Trump twittrar och hur hans tweets har mottagits av läsarna. Studien utgår från en kvantitativ innehållsanalys som metod och genom den har Trumps tweets sammanställts och kategoriserats upp i huvudteman och underteman, bestående av negativa, positiva, neutrala, politiska, personliga och annat. Utöver huvudteman och underteman räknades även antalet stavelser och ord Trump skrev. Studien analyserade bland annat hur mycket respons Trump fick på sina tweets och responsen han får är i form av reply, retweet och like. Resultatet tyder på att Trumps negativa och politiska tweets får mest respons, främst i form av likes. Det har även undersökts vilka ord Trump skriver mest på Twitter och hur många stavelser de innehåller och i resultatet kom det fram att ord som Trump skriver mycket är fake, news, och media med mera. Trump skriver även majoriteten av sina ord med en eller två stavelser.

During his presidential campaign and throughout his presidency Donald Trump’s dealings with illegal immigration have sparked global controversy. The election of Donald Trump has thus insinuated a debate within the academic field of International Relations and a reoccurring concept within said debate is populism. This thesis includes itself into said debate through considering the empirical case study of the Trump administration’s securitization of illegal immigration. More specifically, it investigates how Trump’s securitizing speech acts fuel populism in the US which challenges discourses of open borders and subsequently affects US-Mexico relations. The thesis analyzes polls to captivate the US’ general population as an audience and applies discourse analysis on speeches held by Donald Trump to grasp how the Trump administration’s securitization of illegal immigration fueled populism in the US. It studies the negative effects of the securitization on US-Mexico relations by examining the reactions of Mexican presidents, members of the Mexican Foreign Relations Department and members of the Mexican senate. It is found that Trump’s rhetoric employed throughout the securitization of illegal immigration fueled authoritarian populism and xenophobic populism in the US which captivates the negative sentiments of the predominantly conservative Republican voters towards illegal immigration. The employed rhetoric subsequently challenged discourses of open borders. The effects of said challenges had negative implications on US-Mexico relations as the investigations of the reactions of the Mexican presidents, the members of the Mexican Foreign Relations Department and the members of the Mexican senate have shown.

Language and discourse can create a space where political decision-making and action is accepted despite its untypical nature. The goal of the study is to un-derstand how political discourse is constructed with the aim of legitimizing ex-traordinary action in relation to the framework of securitization. The study revolves around how and why President Trump discursively attempts to legitimize his order that led to the assassination of Iranian Major General Soleimani, on the 2nd of Jan-uary 2020, by conducting a discourse analysis of two speeches delivered within the first week following the event. The study contributes with insight on the particular case, and shows how Maj. Gen. Soleimani is represented as an irrational terrorist, who posed imminent danger to the American people. The act attempted legitimized is presented as done in the name of ‘security’ which seeks to justify the notion of President Trump ‘breaking free’ of usual procedures. The main conclusions of the study are the presented legitimatization strategies, including the linguistic constella-tion of an existential threat, the allusion of a hypothetical future and the exploitation of emotional trauma. Moreover, the findings uncover that a securitization move has taken place within the analyzed speeches.