human brain is a physical entity comprising the unbiased circuitry found within our brains and bodies. The majority of our thoughts remain undiscovered by the conscious mind, as they lack conscious access to the neural circuitry. The concept of the mind serves to explain why individuals often make decisions unconsciously, without prior conscious awareness. Understanding how the neural unconscious functions is crucial in the realm of politics, as it impacts decision-making processes. Frames are employed to comprehend situations and shape the choices made by individuals. For instance, a politician's statement such as "What is the easiest way to fight corruption?" reveals their awareness of the corruption present in the economy controlled by current leadersfootnoteRef:2.

Different politicians have their own conceptual frames, and political language is used in the way described in George's book. The words used in institutions, cultural life, and politics are typically neutral, but in political language, politicians are expected to avoid repeating the opposition's language and instead frame the issue in their own way. If one takes the vocabularies literally and ignores differences in worldview, they may mistakenly conclude that everyone supports the same idea. For instance, if one political side declares "We desire energy independence," the opposing side will interpret it differently.

On the one hand, the opposing side is unable to express opposition towards energy independence or even mention the term "independence" (Ohl, Pfister, Nader, and Griffin, 2013).

3: In her article "The power of persuasion: Modality and issue framing in the 2012 Taiwan Presidential Debates," Maria Cheng explores the significance of metaphors in political discourse. She argues that politicians use their own distinct metaphorical expressions to convey the idea of We Vote

by.

An example of a metaphor is "We can see the light behind the tunnel." It is employed by a politician to instill hope in his supporters, indicating that positive outcomes are anticipated following their exhaustive campaigning. Moreover, the notion that individuals will vote for you due to your values holds significance. Voters will consistently consider a candidate's conduct and their interpretation of specific principles and values. Those with limited conservative beliefs tend to vote against their own material interests.

The values of moral worldviews are extensively studied and the general public holds respect for them.[^4^] [^4^: Matlock, T. E. E.]

N. I. E. states in the article "Motion metaphors in political races" in the book Language and the Creative Mind (2014) that numerous candidates use family metaphors to describe their country, symbolizing the nation as a family unit.

The main idealizations of the family that are widely discussed are the progressive and conservative aspects. An example of this is when a candidate references sending sons and daughters to war, highlighting the commitment of male and female soldiers in protecting their country. George believes that the morality of individuals justifies authority, which is a fundamental concept. He argues that in a world organized by nature, there should be a moral hierarchy where those who have traditionally held dominance continue to dominate.

An illustration of this is when God is placed above Man, Straights are placed above Gays, and America is placed above other nations. Cleverness in winning elections is also discussed in George's book. A candidate must be a creative thinker in order to defeat their opponent. It's possible for a candidate to use certain words repeatedly to influence

people's thoughts and align them with their goals. (source: Pfister, Damien S., Jessy J. Ohl, Marty Nader, and Dana Griffin.)

"Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012." (2013).

Discussion

In order to attract voters and build a following, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump make use of George Lakoff's concepts. On July 28, 2016, during the Democratic Convention, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech where she employed these ideas.

Hillary started her speech by thanking the audience for their warm welcome. She presented herself as a nurturing figure to the American people, emphasizing unity and a sense of family within the nation. This display showcased her blend of progressive and conservative beliefs, illustrating her deep love and care for America like that of a mother for her children, as well as her readiness to make sacrifices for the country. Additionally, she stressed her dedication to enhancing the economy to generate more job prospects, while also assuring that religious freedom would not be limited if she became president.

In his book on political language, George discusses the argument made by Trump and Hillary. George suggests that instead of using direct rhetoric about banning religion and economic development, Trump should take a different approach focused on facilitating employment opportunities for job seekers. In contrast, Hillary addresses concerns such as inequality, limited social mobility, and political gridlock in Washington. She emphasizes the importance of values like freedom, equality, and justice in uniting America while urging individuals to resist those who oppose these values.

Hillary Clinton's stance on these values enabled her to persuade citizens of her credibility as well as her keen understanding of human principles and ethics. She countered Donald

Trump's claim that "I alone can fix it" by emphasizing the notion that no leader can effectively govern America without the assistance of the people. Clinton proclaimed, "We'll fix it together." Both Trump and Clinton presented their own perspectives, aiming to sway the public's choice. When concluding her speech, Clinton emphasized her slogan, "Stronger Together," which showcased her intelligence according to George's book. This served as a crucial tactic in aligning people's thoughts with that mottofootnoteRef:6. 6: Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012." (2013).

RBC NETWORK BROADCASTING. “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RchVnIn_-Y (accessed on November, 28 2016) Donald Triumph delivered a campaign speech in Phoenix discussing Immigration and Mexico trips. He emphasized the implementation of strict measures against illegal immigrants. Clinton and Hillary shared similar framing theory concepts. Triumph stated that he would not tolerate undocumented immigrants who had committed a crime and would deport them. This was his frame, and Clinton would need to present the idea differently if she wished to address the issue.

In his book "The All New Don't Think of an Elephant," Trump criticized the media for attributing America's major problems to eleven illegal immigrants without legal status. He argued that this contradicted the concept of social media. In a strategic move to win over black voters, he directly appealed to them by asking, "What do you have to lose? Choose me" [7], in order to discourage their support for Clinton. His campaign manifesto clearly outlined his plan to construct a wall between the United States and Mexico, which prompted Clinton to approach the issue differently if she wanted to address it effectively. This aligns with the structure theory, which emphasizes presenting an issue using language

different from one's opponent.

7: RIGHT SIDE BROADCASTING. "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RDeSRbefVE" (accessed on November, 28 2016) Donald utilized social media to accuse the Mexican president of betraying the Mexican people. Despite this allegation, a substantial number of demonstrators attended the meeting. Donald expressed astonishment at the large turnout, indicating that his impact on social media was significant. He conducted interviews and managed to persuade Mexicans that it was not America but Maldito PerrofootnoteRef:8 who had made the error. 8: RIGHT SIDE BROADCASTING.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RDeSRbefVE (accessed on November, 28 2016)

Conclusion

It's clear that both Hillary and Donald adhered to the concepts of the framing theory in their speeches. Each of them established a framework for the topics they intended to discuss and employed distinct political language. They also utilized metaphors to draw direct parallels between different entities and their goals. For instance, by stating there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Lakoff's ideas need to be adjusted to prevent politicians from easily manipulating certain aspects. For instance, in the case of social media, it is clear that some politicians have gained significant economic and political power to control the content and narrative, as Donald did. George's ideas can be applied in Canada due to its three distinct forms of government: Federal Government, Municipal Government, and Provisional Government. With multiple leaders in this system, applying Lakoff's ideas could lead to peaceful campaigns without leaders accusing each other of having the same agenda.

Bibliography

1. Cheng, Maria. "The power of persuasion: Modality and issue framing in the 2012 Taiwan Presidential Debates." Discourse & Society 27, no. 2 (2016): 172-194.
2. Lakoff, George. The

All New Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2014.

I. E. "Motion metaphors in political races." Language and the Creative Mind (2014): 193-201.

"Lakoff's Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential campaign advertisements, 1952–2012." Communication Studies 64, no. 5 (2013): 488-507.

Pfister, Damien S., Jessy J. Ohl, Marty Nader, and Dana Griffin. "Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012." (2013).

• RBC NETWORK BROADCASTING.

The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RchVnIn_-Y was accessed on November, 28 2016. Another video can be found at the same date, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RDeSRbefVE.