By Months: Valdo Randpere
Total Months: 17
Fully Profiled: 17
10.2025
2 Speeches
The address is formal and respectful, directed toward the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the rapporteur ("Respected Speaker of the Riigikogu! Dear rapporteur!"). The rhetoric is logical and interrogative, focusing on the political framing of the problem and the search for solutions without resorting to emotional appeals.
09.2025
2 Speeches
The style is formal, inquisitive, and detailed, addressing the respected presiding officer and the rapporteur. The speaker relies on logical arguments, citing laws and historical data. The conclusion presents a moderate but direct appeal to support a national necessity (defense spending): "Will the Bank of Estonia also step in to help?"
06.2025
14 Speeches
The rhetorical style is formal and procedural in commission reports, but becomes critical and at times provocative during debates. Strong metaphors are employed to criticize state over-regulation ("nanny state," "blank document") alongside historical comparisons (the Soviet-era anti-alcohol campaign). The discourse includes both logical arguments (such as avoiding bureaucracy) and sharp, value-based stances, including an ironic comment regarding victims of fraud ("fools should indeed be separated from their money").
05.2025
4 Speeches
The rhetorical style is confident and straightforward, incorporating both humor and sarcasm, especially when commenting on opponents' misunderstandings (e.g., "sad news" for those who want to cause trouble on a plane). It favors logical explanation and the presentation of facts, but becomes sharp when criticizing ideological approaches (Helle-Moonika) or factual errors (Rain Epler).
04.2025
5 Speeches
The rhetorical style is confident and at times confrontational, criticizing opponents for using incorrect information or delivering repetitive statements that stray from the discussion topic. Logical arguments and historical parallels (the 2012 law amendment) are employed to substantiate one's positions. The tone is formal but incorporates sarcasm when describing the intimidation of opponents (e.g., "a beggar's sack and a stick in hand").
03.2025
5 Speeches
The style is predominantly confrontational and corrective, using historical facts and newspaper headlines to support the arguments. The speaker employs direct attacks against opponents (e.g., Mart Helme for distorting the past) and even gets personal (asking Helle-Moonika Helm to stop interrupting). The tone is formal, yet emotionally charged and sharp.
02.2025
4 Speeches
The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, yet simultaneously enthusiastic and laudatory, particularly concerning the quality of the draft being presented, often employing powerful superlatives. It relies heavily on logical arguments, carefully balancing the introduction of procedural details (committee debates, minutes) with fundamental legal principles (such as the inevitability of sanction).
01.2025
2 Speeches
The speaker's style is confrontational and accusatory, addressing the opponent directly and using strong terms (e.g., "whines") to characterize the opposing party. The emphasis is placed on historical responsibility and logical appeal, recalling the opponents' earlier compliance and calling into question their current judgment.
11.2024
4 Speeches
The speaker's style is confrontational yet simultaneously pedagogical, explaining the specifics of funding to their opponents while accusing them of insincerity. They employ direct address and personalized rebuttals to defend their own positions and overturn false claims, particularly those related to compulsory military service. The tone is at times surprised (regarding their own role in the debate) and sharp, especially when addressing the Centre Party (Keskerakond) and EKRE.
10.2024
1 Speeches
The style is sharp, sarcastic, and combative, featuring direct personal attacks on the opponents' competence and actions (e.g., Kalle's bill is "total rubbish"). The speaker employs both procedural logic (the commission's unanimous decision) and colloquial expressions ("Well, look at that!") to underscore their position. Logical argumentation is preferred, interwoven with personal, ironic remarks.
09.2024
1 Speeches
The rhetorical style is combative, straightforward, and legally argued, blending logical appeals with emotional frustration ("it already hurts," "damn it"). The speaker employs strong, and at times colloquial, language to underscore their position, while simultaneously maintaining a sharp focus on the legal definition. The speech concludes to the sound of applause, indicating support from the audience in the hall.
06.2024
1 Speeches
The speaker employs a personal and anecdotal style, utilizing a brief introduction to deliver pointed self-criticism. The tone is both regretful and ironic, highlighting the intense emotional reaction to their previous decision.
05.2024
4 Speeches
The style is analytical and detailed, especially when clarifying legislation, but it also includes sharp and ironic comments, such as those concerning the intimidation tactics used by KAPO (the Estonian Internal Security Service). The author employs strong metaphors (Linnahall is a "garbage heap") and personal anecdotes (living in Sweden) to inject life into the arguments. Although the author maintains a formal demeanor as the committee rapporteur, the tone is occasionally provocative, and he/she is unafraid to criticize colleagues (as seen with the Grünthal draft bill).
04.2024
9 Speeches
The rhetorical style is sharp, at times sarcastic, and blunt, particularly when criticizing opponents (Kert Kingo/EKRE) for procedural incompetence and wasting time. He/She uses logical arguments and references to committee protocols to substantiate his/her claims, accusing the opposition of "mud-slinging" and making false statements. The overall tone is confident and protective of institutional order.
03.2024
2 Speeches
The style is direct and at times confrontational, particularly in economic debates, where rhetorical questions are employed to challenge the opponent’s viewpoints. In the speech concerning taxation, the tone is ironic, referencing caviar and champagne to mock the opponent’s arguments. On legal matters, the style is explanatory, relying on anecdotes and procedural details, while simultaneously maintaining a formal tone.
02.2024
16 Speeches
The speaker's style is predominantly combative, sarcastic, and provocative, especially towards opponents (EKRE, Isamaa), employing direct questions and personal insinuations. He effectively balances logical arguments (the defense of the rule of law) with emotional and rhetorical attacks, referencing the opposition's historical failures (the 22 million euro miscalculation, allowing tax revenue to flow into Latvia). He also utilizes anecdotes (such as the Munich Security Conference) to illustrate his positions.
01.2024
13 Speeches
The rhetorical style is straightforward, argumentative, and at times emotional, particularly concerning the long wait time to reach the podium. It employs logical appeals to defend the rule of law, stressing that acquittal verdicts demonstrate the system's effectiveness. It sharply criticizes the opponents' political sloganeering and "over-dramatization," which is unsuitable behavior for a member of the Riigikogu.