By Months: Henn Põlluaas

Total Months: 18

Fully Profiled: 18

10.2025

10 Speeches

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational and accusatory, employing sharp expressions like "demagoguery," "you covered it up/fudged the numbers," and "you are lying." Although the speaker relies on facts and official sources (the Social Insurance Board), the presentation is emotionally charged and aims to publicly discredit the opponent. He demands that the discussion be kept strictly within the bounds of truth and facts.
09.2025

19 Speeches

The speaker's tone is predominantly critical, demanding, and at times combative, especially when criticizing procedural shortcomings ("How is this even possible?"). The appeals are primarily logical, relying on figures, laws, and the absence of analysis, but emotional language is also employed when addressing corruption and ethical responsibility ("it's embarrassing to watch").
06.2025

9 Speeches

The rhetorical style is combative, insistent, and direct, particularly concerning security issues and government criticism. Strong emotional expressions are used (e.g., "empire of evil," "meat attacks," "you are lying"), but there is also an appeal to pragmatic necessity and logic (the lesson of Ukraine, the lack of an alternative).
05.2025

10 Speeches

The rhetorical style is combative and forceful, employing strong, emotionally charged phrases such as "green madness," "web of lies," and "suicidal." The criticism is sharp, accusing the government of economic destruction and incompetence. Especially concerning national defense, the tone is historically reasoned and cautionary, appealing both to logic and national responsibility.
04.2025

9 Speeches

The style is predominantly combative and critical, frequently employing strong and judgmental expressions ("absurd," "nonsensical," "demagoguery," "far-left ideological pressure"). The speaker relies on constitutional logic and data in their arguments, but emotionally contrasts these with the opponents' "follies of left-wing radicals" and "utopians." He emphasizes the need to use "plain common sense" and accuses opponents of making women unhappy.
03.2025

4 Speeches

The rhetorical style is extremely insistent, critical, and anxious, describing the situation as "catastrophic," "ridiculous," and "a matter of life and death." Both logical arguments (data, facts) and strong emotional appeals are employed to underscore the danger inherent in the government's inaction. The speaker frequently utilizes rhetorical questions and direct addresses to convey frustration and demand answers.
02.2025

5 Speeches

The rhetorical style is predominantly serious, urgent, and confrontational, employing strong warnings and emotional imagery (for example, referring to the situation as "writing a bomb into our constitution"). The speaker presents logical arguments regarding the consequences of the proposed legal amendments, but also accuses the coalition of engaging in an "extremely two-faced game" and deliberately steering the proceedings into a deadlock. He addresses the public directly, urging them to closely follow the discussion.
01.2025

8 Speeches

The rhetorical style is insistent, combative, and often cautionary, particularly on the topics of national defense and citizenship. Strong historical parallels are employed (the demise of the first republic, silent surrender) alongside emotionally charged language (absurd, unprecedented step). The appeals are primarily value-based, positioning the government's inaction as a threat to the state's continued existence.
12.2024

10 Speeches

The tone is extremely combative, accusatory, and dramatic, employing strong emotional appeals and historical parallels. It uses direct and sharp expressions (e.g., "blatant lie," "absurd," "we are destroying the Estonian state") and directly accuses the government of the country's decline. It focuses on blaming the government and painting the future in bleak terms, accusing ministers of arrogance and lying.
11.2024

3 Speeches

The rhetorical style is sharp, urgent, and combative, employing strong negative terms like "catastrophic" and "absurd" to characterize the situation. Although the arguments are logical and fact-based (e.g., errors in the cost-benefit analysis and the findings of the National Audit Office), the presentation remains intense and focuses heavily on demanding accountability ("who is to blame for this?").
10.2024

21 Speeches

The rhetorical style is very combative, sharp, and emotionally charged, especially when criticizing ministers, who are accused of cynicism, incompetence, and arrogance. Punchy and memorable phrases are used ("truly embarrassing," "a complete mess"), and attacks are often directed at both policy and personal conduct. Although the style is confrontational, the criticism is often backed up by specific data and legal references.
09.2024

2 Speeches

The rhetorical style is dual: in the first address, it is strategic and inquisitive, focusing on technical shortcomings and demanding solutions. In the second speech, however, the style shifts to become highly confrontational and emotional, employing strong accusations ("slander," "defamation") while appealing to national values and the role model provided to the youth.
07.2024

1 Speeches

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong expressions (such as "into the abyss" or "green frenzy"). The speech is structured around accusations concerning the government's inaction and incompetence. It utilizes both logical arguments (like ignoring the basic tenets of economics) and emotional appeals, highlighting the negative impact of tax increases on families and rural communities. The text concludes with an ironic proposal regarding targeted taxation.
06.2024

11 Speeches

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, critical, and insistent, repeatedly accusing the government of lying and engaging in cynical behavior. Both logical arguments (legal violations, comparison with German taxes) and strong emotional appeals are used, emphasizing that the taxes force people to make an impossible choice: either own a car or keep food on the table for their family. Sarcastic comparisons are employed, such as drawing a parallel between cross-border murderers and pedophiles in connection with the repeal of the penal code.
05.2024

12 Speeches

The rhetorical style is highly combative, dramatic, and urgent, employing strong emotional appeals and historical parallels (Pavlik Morozov, Matrossov). Opponents are frequently labeled (e.g., "insane climate fanatics" or "the government of liars"), and it is stressed that the coalition is violating procedural rules and the constitution. The speaker adopts a cautionary tone to highlight the negative consequences of the proposed bills on social cohesion and the nation's finances.
04.2024

27 Speeches

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, urgent, and emotional, employing harsh accusations and moral condemnations (e.g., "tax terror," "pathological lie," "genocide"). The speaker urgently appeals to patriotism and a sense of national duty, accusing the government of sabotage and the destruction of the Estonian nation. Personal addresses and references to past acquaintances are also utilized to discredit the opponent, thereby highlighting their moral degradation.
03.2024

49 Speeches

The speaker's rhetorical style is extremely combative, confrontational, and accusatory, employing sharp phrases such as "government of liars," "absurd nonsense," and "tax terror." Strong emotional and historical analogies are utilized (for example, a quote from an NKVD officer, the theme of communism, and comparisons to Nazis and racists). Logical arguments (violations of law, economic damage) are interwoven with personal attacks and an emphasis on the government's incompetence.
02.2024

58 Speeches

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and often emotional, employing strong language (e.g., "unconstitutional," "criminal," "eco-fanatics"). Appeals are made to common sense and the will of the people, while the actions of opponents are labeled as ideological and unnatural. It features both logical argumentation (citing specific legal statutes) and sharp personal confrontation, accusing opponents of deception and demagoguery.