here can be some parallels made between the way politicians today might attack the foibles and personal shortcomings of their opponents, the same way Cassius does with Caesar in this play. Can you think of an example in modern politics? Think about election time or the way candidates campaign, even during years when they are not running for reelection. Include in your discussion a description of parallels between situations today and the situation between Cassius and Caesar.

i JUST NEED HELP IN FIGURING OUT HOW TO COMPARE IT TO MODERN POLITICS

Cassius insulted Caesar and attacked him in his speeches.

Your assignment is to find a modern politician who has insulted and attacked his/her opponent. Then discuss the similarities and differences between politics in the U.S. today and politics in Rome in Julius Caesar's time.

This is one of the most wrong-headed, evil, and stupid attack that I've ever seen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/stella-tremblay-boston-bombing_n_3140461.html

Thank you! The way you worded it makes it way more understandable!

To compare the situation between Cassius and Caesar in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar to modern politics, we need to understand the dynamic and tactics employed by Cassius in attacking Caesar's foibles and personal shortcomings. Cassius sees Caesar's ambition and power as a threat to the Roman Republic, and he manipulates public opinion to undermine Caesar's credibility and rally others to his cause.

In modern politics, we can observe similar tactics used by politicians during election campaigns or even when they are not running for reelection. One example is negative campaigning, where candidates attack their opponents' personal shortcomings, character flaws, or past mistakes to tarnish their reputation and gain an advantage.

For instance, politicians might dig into their opponents' records or personal lives, searching for scandals, inconsistencies, or controversial actions. They might highlight these flaws to question their opponents' suitability for office and create doubts in the minds of voters. Such attacks are often designed to provoke emotional reactions, create mistrust, and sway public opinion against the opposing candidate.

There are several parallels between this situation and the conflict between Cassius and Caesar. Like Cassius, modern politicians seek to exploit their opponents' weaknesses and present themselves as the better alternative. They utilize rhetoric, speeches, and media platforms to influence public perception and garner support.

Furthermore, both Cassius and modern politicians aim to shape public opinion and rally people behind their cause. Cassius is successful in convincing other senators, like Brutus, that Caesar's ambition threatens the Romans' freedom. Similarly, modern politicians aim to win over voters by highlighting their opponents' flaws and presenting themselves as the solution to the perceived problems facing the nation.

In summary, a parallel can be drawn between Cassius' tactics in attacking Caesar's foibles and personal shortcomings in Julius Caesar and the way politicians in modern politics use negative campaigning and personal attacks to undermine their opponents. By seeking out similarities in strategy and aim, you can effectively compare the two contexts.