« Constitutional Calvinball | Main | Heard something about a debate »

October 13, 2019

Comments

What used to irritate me was the overuse of the phrase, you know. Usually in interviews with pro athletes which I rarely ever see anymore. Now it's the overuse of the word, like, by the thirties something and younger crowd. You know like they're all Valley Girls or something.

I personally find the various grammar errors to be useful. As markers for "ignoramus", for "pompous", or for "pompous ignoramus."

I do realize the bad grammar doesn't necessarily mean someone has nothing useful to say on other topics. But my willingness to be tolerant of it is weak. It's such a quick and easy filter....

Murray Hill

Yes. That's where they came from.

Is everyone with me, though, on getting rid of stupid rules like no split infinitives?

(I get the impression that the High Lords of Grammar have already come around on that one, so maybe I'm running to the front of the parade well after it started.)

wj: sometimes a bit of bad usage bugs me a lot...then wait a few years, and it's "eh, whatev", and something ELSE is what bugs me.

It's not just the language that's evolving, I guess.

So, just follow the prescription:

"At first I was disgusted, now I'm just amused"

It applies to language and so much more, ifyouknowwhatImean.

hsh -- I'm certainly with you. I've seen writers on grammar agree with us for decades, it's the high school English teachers who -- apparently -- will never come around. Which is odd, because I think they stopped teaching grammar as such a long time ago.

It's not hard to find Amazon reviews (and often ones that don't seem to be written by old fogies like me) bitching about split infinitives, sentences ending in prepositions, and sentences starting with "and" or "but."

Split infinitives are, as I recall, one of the cases where English grammar rules were created by grammarians taking Latin grammar rules and forcing them onto a non-Romance language. Getting rid of those has been all to the good.

lie v lay (Dylan should have wrote 'lie lady lie', but that sucks)

Except that it probably needs the slight allusion to getting laid.

****

An even bigger pet peeve, which I run across everywhere now, but which started to drive me crazy at work originally, is "utilize" for “use.”

Yes, the tendency to use longer words to indicate greater levels of sophistication or education is very tiresome. I also detest the increasing confusion between "on the part of" and "on behalf of". And on and on. And if I was the esteemed commenter who used "myself" wrongly, I apologise. But speaking (yet again!) for myself, I have a great nostalgia for times when Janie was the grammar police, and would be more than happy to see their return.

Years ago, but also nearly two decades after "Lay Lady Lay" was a hit, during a visit home I heard my mother humming/half singing the song as she made dinner in her kitchen.

Soon after, I asked her if she liked that song, and she said yes she had for some time, which was the first evidence really that she had been listening to her kids' music with some attention, though perhaps it was we/us/we/us? who had not been paying attention.

I never asked my mother how it is that she thought to give me the first Kinks album in 1964 for Christmas when I was 14. Obviously, she had never listened to those lyrics, which for the time were suggestive as hell. I think she probably asked the kid at the record store what the other kids were listening to and went with it.

In "Lay Lady Lay", Dylan also changes from first person to third person mid-lyric.

Lay lady lay
Lay across my big brass bed
Stay lady stay
Stay with your man a while
Until the break of day
Let me see you make him smile.

How crowded was that bed?

Late in my mother's life, I wondered regarding her affection for the song whether it caused her to think about my Dad, who died when I was 14, and when she was only 38 years into her 87-year-long life with five kids to raise and a lonely bed to repair to for her remaining years, which is of course not something I was mature enough to fully appreciate until I was much older.

Which makes that song almost unbearably poignant for me when I hear it today.

I suggested, and we chose, as I said here at the time, and among other pieces, to play the Cash/Dylan "Girl From the North Country" at her memorial service, which I held in my private mind, not even explaining it to my siblings, as a kind of bookend to her "Lay Lady Lay", but with my imaginings of my Dad's, then dead 49 years and still counting, sentiments toward HER expressed instead in GFTNC.

And, of course, I probably wouldn't have thought of the song without seeing our GFTNC's handle on a daily basis at the time.

I've always thought this sounded better:

Lay lady lay
Lie across my big brass bed

You get both intentions.

JDT: never go away.

Nashville Skyline was the first album I ever bought, when I was still at boarding school.

The Cash/Dylan version of the song is achingly beautiful, and the example I always use to refute the suggestion that Dylan has always had a lousy voice.

When I was travelling back and forth to Yorkshire to my late husband, and started commenting here, I was very delighted to choose GftNC as my handle. If it happened to give you, JDT, any inspiration at a time of need, I'm glad.

Yes, it was the inspiration, and thanks for that.

If your handle was "Love Shack" or something else, I might have passed.

You never know, though, with me.

ARRGGGGGHHHH! No! It's "the chart below"

Absolutely - and yet why is the above chart entirely acceptable ?

I used to be a grammar pedant, but now even the most egregious misplaced apostrophe doesn’t bother me the way it did.

Nigel -- absolutely, and I think at one point I tried to dig into that question, but didn't get far, or just got frustrated.

We do have a real linguist on this blog, so maybe he'll chime in at some point on the general pattern of these things.

But other superficially similar questions come to mind, like:

--I gave money to the library.
--I gave the library money.

--I donated money to the library.
--I donated the library money. (Nope.)

I'd guess that the give/donate difference has something to do with the origins of the two words. And indeed...hmmmmm.

As you might guess, "give" is via the Germanic side while "donate" is via the French. But who knew: "donate" (acc to the internet) is an 18th century backformation from "donation."

Misplaced apostrophes fly right be me these days, too. Although I was just listening to someone joke around about a local grocer's supply of (misplaced) apostrophes for the marquee out front. I leave them out in texts all the time because I'm too lazy to switch to the other "keyboard."

The only apostrophe which truly infuriates me now is the one which some incarnations of autocorrect add inappropriately to ‘its’.

"I donated the library money" is a grammatically correct sentence, it just has a meaning different from the others.

Hartmut....I'm so glad I learned English as an infant and didn't have to do it after my language-learning module switched off. ;-)

*****

may/might

I'm talking about a specific misuse of "may" for "might," separate from any distinction between, e.g.,

--We may go to the beach tomorrow.
--We might go to the beach tomorrow.

With that one, if memory serves, "may" suggests a slightly higher likelihood of going to the beach than "might." But don't quote me on that.

No, the thing that makes me grind my teeth is this one:

--If it hadn't rained yesterday, we may have gone to the beach.

Ding ding ding. It should be:

--...we might have gone to the beach.

I have a long file of examples of this (mis)usage, many of them from the internet, where editing is almost unknown, but some of them from published books that you'd think might have had at least a minimal standard of copy editing.

This one goes with who/whom, meaning I think it's an example of overcorrection, born of anxiety about using the right construction.

It really grates on me...as does using "whom/ever" in the subject slot. Who/whom is a nuisance, because even to my picky ear "whom" sounds pretentious a lot of the time when it's used correctly. But that very pretentiousness may be why people are increasingly using it where "who" belongs (I have a whole file of these, too). I would have thought that if one of them was going to disappear, it would have been "whom." I wouldn't bet on it now.

*****

P.S. GftNC: Was I once the grammar police? Yeesh, I think I should apologize to everyone but you, if you truly did like it. I do like to hash this stuff out for venting purposes (and entertainment?), but I've gotten less and less apt to bring up grammar, because a lot of people don't like it at all, and I do get that it can be irritating.

lj........Language discussions make me think of you. We miss you! I hope you're having fun and getting ever more fluent in Korean.

OMG

I thought, when I saw this editorial cartoon, that it was a cute commentary on how Trump does foreign affairs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/16/trump-writes-letter-one-his-favorite-autocrats/

To my astonishment (proving I can, somehow, still be amazed by him), it turns out that the letter shown is an absolutely, 100%, accurate copy of a letter that Trump actually sent to Erdogan. "Bizarre" barely begins to describe it.

More presidential than Lincoln.

More honest than Harding, too.

A reminder: there were people here who were willing to roll to dice to let Trump win (in addition to the people here who still refuse to support his opposition). Just putting it out there, since it's unpopular for me to say mean things.

Unfortunately, as in dire for America, also less impeached than Andrew Johnson, less pneumoccocal than Harrison, less lead-poisoned than McKinley, less stroked-out than Wilson, less book repositoried and grassy-knolled than Kennedy, less wounded than Garfield.

If he wrote his own medical update, he couldn't be in better health.

The Republic's medical scans, on the other hand, show rapidly metastasizing malignancies, advanced arteriosclerosis, and major blockages in the lower GI tract, particularly in the McConnell quadrant, and the Graham anal canal.

The patient shows signs of fatal buildup of concentrated methane and spontaneous combustion with explosive mortality dangerous to all bystanders.

The patient shows signs of fatal buildup of concentrated methane and spontaneous combustion with explosive mortality dangerous to all bystanders.

Who could've knowed?

"Just putting it out there, since it's unpopular for me to say mean things."

I'll be gone soon, so let me be the mean one.

There are people here, and everywhere in the fucking world, who put forth the proposition that we liberals and moderates were personally responsible for not nominating someone more appealing to conservatives in 2016.

They are not going to like shouldering the personal responsibility for THEIR electoral decisions as chaos descends on their heads.

I'll be gone soon ...

Since none of us (except for you) want you to be gone soon (or at all), can I be the buttinski to ask why? We [speaking for myself, and I'm pretty sure many others] love you. We don't deserve an explanation or anything else, other than the gift of having you around. But [out of character, I know] it's going to hurt us (not that you're responsible, but it's how grief works).

Don't want to guilt you, but just (again) putting it out there.

Also, correction: The gift of having you around isn't deserved. It's just a gift. Thank you for it.

[The rest of my ridiculous writing style in this thread is my vernacular and I'm okay with it.]

I'll get to it ... the explanation, which is no big deal, soon.

And thanks.

I admit to a piece of deliberate pretentiousness: I use 'whether' whereever it can be correctly used in place of 'if'.
I think it sounds better but originally I did so merely because it was somewhat old-fashioned and therefore snobbish (or posh).
Same for consistently writing to-morrow with a hyphen (which may even be officially wrong according to current rules).

There are people here, and everywhere in the fucking world, who put forth the proposition that we liberals and moderates were personally responsible for not nominating someone more appealing to conservatives in 2016.

They are not going to like shouldering the personal responsibility for THEIR electoral decisions as chaos descends on their heads.

Yes. But also (sorry guys), no.

No question, anyone who voted for Trump, in the primaries or the general election, for any reason, bears the responsibility for the totally foreseeable disaster he is being. Totally.

However, those who selected Clinton as the nominee to run against him do not, IMHO, get a pass. You managed to choose someone who was sufficiently disliked that she lost the "dislike both" voters by something like 65% to 15%. That's simply off the charts huge. And it's not like it was any kind of secret just how disliked she was.

It doesn't matter how unjustified that dislike was -- and the reasons to dislike Trump were far more substantive, not to mention real. If you are trying to win an election, you go with the voters you have. You deal with how they will vote, not on how they ought to vote.

I know it's agonizing to hear. But you guys made a poor choice, which contributed to the scumbag winning. Personally, I would have been far happier with a President Clinton than a President Sanders. But if you didn't vote for Bernie**, you contributed to the problem today. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

** Or, [insert name of different alternative Democratic nominee here], if you prefer.

Are you saying that it was apparent in 2015-16 that centrist voters would prefer Sanders to Trump but Trump to Hillary?

Fair point, Pro Bono. Though it’s far from impossible.

The mistake, if there was one, was more likely Obama’s in persuading Biden not to run. Whether he would have actually got the nomination is unknowable, but it’s certainly possible - and ever there was a time for him, it was back then.

Personally, I think Sanders would not have won in 2016. His local margins would imo have been even more extreme than Hillary's, i.e. he might have won higher in places where it would not have mattered but would have lost more in other places.
I also think a lot of 'centrists' would have done what was claimed (by them) about Sander's followers, i.e. out of pique not voted for the winning candidate. Probably not that many 'rather vote Trump than Sanders' guys on the Dem side but quite a lot of 'can't vote for either'. Perhaps even some 'strategic' thinking along the lines of 'Trump will ruin the GOP brand but Sanders our's', so a Trump win (while not good) would be of benefit in the long run.
Without the moss cow midge there was a remote chance of that being the case but the damage the combo of him and the Jabbabonky inflicted and still inflicts on the US (and the world) far outweighs any of that potential benefit. Dem congresscritters may still see their own advantage on the Trump side though, if Sanders is the alternative (many would fall for zombie Reagan in an instant).
I am pessimistic as usual. Even if (what I do not believe) the senate goes Dem, it would not change that much as far as true reforms go. 'Principled' Dems will kill anything 'radical' a president Sanders or Warren could propose. Cutting benefits will stay popular.
The only main difference will be a temporary stop of radical RW judges appointed to the courts. I have very little hope that any Dem president can shift the balance leftward in a significant way. There will be few vacancies left to fill and enough Dems will join the GOP to block anything left of a Garland.
My prediction: no end to the filibuster and consequently no end to the gridlock.

i'll just note that only one person has ever received more votes in a Presidential election than the disliked candidate did, and that person was Barack Obama.

see also: Comey, NYT, Russia.

wj: It doesn't matter how unjustified that dislike was

Bollocks. Of course it matters. It matters because once you decide that irrational, ginned-up hatred is worth deferring to, you might as well give up on the government of the people, by the people, and for the people thing.

If you are trying to win an election, you go with the voters you have. You deal with how they will vote, not on how they ought to vote.

And of course everybody just knew, back during the Democratic primaries, that the so-called Grand Old Party would barf up He, Trump as its nominee, and that the "white working class" would vote for Him in the general. Just plain knew it. It was dead obvious. All the polls said so.

--TP

"Bizarre" barely begins to describe it.

Indeed. Could it be a harbinger of the total implosion of this administration? If only.

And what TP said.

My two-pence worth on one of our regular revisitings of the advisability or otherwise of nominating HRC: since most of the dislike against her was invented, stoked and kept warm by Fox et al, they would have done the same to any Dem nominee, the only difference being that they would have had less time to do it in before the election, with who knows what result. I'm guessing the "socialist" tag would have done for Sanders even without much of their help.

GftNC: Was I once the grammar police? Yeesh, I think I should apologize to everyone but you, if you truly did like it.

Don't worry, it was just that once I called for the (theoretical) grammar police to intervene in a discussion, and you responded to my delight with "You rang?" Further to which, thanks for the may/might comment, I now understand what you were talking about, and it is annoying, along with much else. Alas, I am still vulnerable to apostrophe irritations, but perhaps it will pass. The only thing is, I'm not entirely sure I want it to, if you know what I mean.

And what Tony P said.

I think Hartmut might be right. I’m not sure because nobody can be, but what I have noticed on all parts of the political spectrum ( including mine) is a lot of wishful thinking and perfect certainty not just about issues, but about how their preferred candidate has widespread appeal except amongst all those people who disagree and they are all idiots.

So it is traditional for we Sanders types to say Bernie would have won. Maybe, but I am not sure and I could well imagine Hartmut being right. As for Clinton’s vote totals, she was running against a circus freak and the most openly racist candidate in a generation. Some of her voters liked her. Some loved her. Some did the lesser evil thing.

I have no idea how the electoral calculus goes in 2020. I like Sanders and then Warren, but as for who has the best shot, for all I know it might be Biden.

More food for thought about "forgiving" Trump voters can be found here.

"Bizarre" barely begins to describe it.

It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don't happen. Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool!

words that will live in infamy

My thought about all of this is that Hilary prevailed as the (D) nominee because more (D)'s thought she would be a better president than Sanders or the other folks who were running.

That is both a completely reasonable opinion to hold, and a completely reasonable way to select a candidate for president.

And I heartily second all of the other comments made by Tony P, GFTNC, and others.

Trump is an obvious crook and ran a campaign of malice bigotry and resentment. There was no innuendo or dog whistling, it was all out front. Folks who voted for him knew what they were getting, and it's what they voted for.

Clinton's "unlikeability" seems like small beer, in comparison. To me, anyway.

also, Trump's 'likeability' polling was always lower than HRC's. Trump has never been popular, or had positive approval in polling.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html

HRC was in the mid 60s during her time as Sec State, IIRC.

GftNC: My two-pence worth on one of our regular revisitings of the advisability or otherwise of nominating HRC: since most of the dislike against her was invented, stoked and kept warm by Fox et al, they would have done the same to any Dem nominee, the only difference being that they would have had less time to do it in before the election, with who knows what result. I'm guessing the "socialist" tag would have done for Sanders even without much of their help.

This, and what everyone else said. wj's argument that Clickbait is our fault is one of the most infuriating bits of blame-deflecting blatherskite it is possible to imagine. Unbelievable.

As a noun from late 14c. Written as two words until 16c., then as to-morrow until early 20c.

From here. (Don't know how reliable a source it is.)

Hartmut, just how old are you, anyhow?!!?!?!?

;-)

But speaking of "whether" -- another mild pet peeve of mine is people who say "whether or not" when "whether" would do just fine. "Whether or not" is deeply ingrained, though, and sometimes a sentence actually does come along where it makes more sense, especially (maybe) if it's split.

I had a friend once who would say, completely unconsciously, "whether or whether or not."

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, you can bet there would be a steady barrage by individuals here assigning personal responsibility to Democratic voters in general and specific individuals here who chose to divulge their private ballot choices for whatever inevitable failures ensued from her administration.

I believe she would have been assassinated within months of her inauguration, as in physically gunned down by conservative movement operatives, rather than the usual unending and mostly scurrilous fusillades of character assassination, because the kind of mortal hate wielded by the conservative movement always has its inevitable violent ending, but of course only one or two gunman, armed by the conservative movement, would have been assigned personal responsibility for their actions.

Here's the look of contrition and one hopes the onset of personal responsibility, because don't think that any republican/conservative who has served this administration or who has voiced support for even one of their policies is going to escape the same fate of those who associated with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and Alger Hiss everlasting lifelong suspicion of being anti- and un-American.

https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1184606518756413442/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1184606518756413442&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F

James Mattis:

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

He had his chance. He had his opportunity. But just more empty bullshit self-crotch grabbing from another big swinging dick conservative.

I'll take personal responsibility for the nomination of Hillary Clinton. She was a crappy candidate and only tangentially in agreement with the issues I care about, but then so were the Centre and conservative parties in a German election in 1933, another fucking binary choice.

If the Democratic Party's function is to cater to the political tastes of conservatives, then fuck the two-party system.

Merge the political parties and get it over with.

I don't recall Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush keeping ANY campaign promises they made as appeal to moderate Democrats during the election once in office. It was radical conservative fuck you pig shit from the get go to the very end.

Besides, the entire claim to allegiance to personal responsibility by conservatives, or anyone in America is a travesty.

The first thing an American does when starting a business is shield themselves and their assets from personal responsibility for their corporate actions by setting up a limited liability entity.

They set up a "person", a doppelganger corporation, and point at it when the shit hits the fan because of their personal actions. Not my fault.

They keep the house, the car, the golden parachutes.

Then they, the unelected, take full advantage of our dumbass Citizen's United Law, often times pleading anonymity, to gut any law that might cause them personally or corporately to be accountable for the results of their private and corporate actions or even to pay, via taxes, for what's left of any government enforcement of the hollowed out laws, unless it's the laws enacted against the un-monied powerless.

Ok, so that's a simplification. I'm a big boy, I know how this shit works and that it will probably never work any other way.

But just STFU about "personal responsibility".

I can very clearly remember standing in my kitchen just before the general election telling my dad how Hillary was going to win in a landslide. That is what I believed at the time.

I also clearly remember being at an election-night party watching the results coming in. It was very much like the SNL skit of the Clinton supporters watching at first with gleeful anticipation, which turned into nervous denial, then into shocked disbelief, and finally into despair.

I say that as someone who wasn't necessarily a big Clinton supporter from the beginning or in general [and I mean "in general," not "in the general (election)"]. I simply believed she was actually qualified and fit for the presidency and would have been extremely competent at running the executive branch, regardless of where she and I might not have shared the same policy preferences. Given the alternative, my support became great as a matter of relativity.

In any case, if you think people who voted for Clinton just had to know that Rump's winning was especially probable, or that it was more probable with Clinton as the nominee than it would have been with one of the other potential nominees, you are quite wrong.

Saying Clickbait is our fault is like if Wayne LaPierre shot himself in the head while handling a firearm carelessly, and NRA members and other gun worshipers started screeching at the rest of us that it was our fault because we didn't get better gun control measures passed.

Cf. the Republican Party. Sadly, not dead yet.

Also, too, I still experience moments of shock when the reality of Donald f**king Trump, NY tabloid freak show of my youth, being the goddamned president sinks into some deep part of my brain for whatever reason.

It's an absurdity - a Simpsons episode come to life. Not only could I not foresee it, I have a hard time post-seeing it.

"But my administrative assistant sister"

Speaking of pet peeves, as a secretary I hope one day the phrase "administrative assistant" dies a hot, painful death. The firm I work for insists upon it, which is bad enough because it's clunky and no improvement over secretary. The common usage, though, is to shorten it to "admins," which sounds like the bad guys in a science fiction movie.

I would not be surprised at all, if Wayne LaPierre never laid hands on a loaded gun in his life (no idea, whether he served at any time in the armed forces but he looks like a typical RW draft dodging hawk to me).

JanieM, I am 46 years of age. But English is also not my native language, so the number does not mean much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Cummings

I have a list of conservative/republican politicians, thousands of names, at every level of government, conservative whackjob judges, conservative media jackasses (who brought up Drudge's name the other day, I'll get to that dumb-hatted gift shop traitorous fuck in a post very soon), the conservative political operatives/ratfuckers who nonstop ratfuck (notice how they are coming out of the woodwork, they never seem to die; really, Toensing and Digenova AGAIN?, the Elaine May and Mike Nichols of grifting slapstick conservative slasher politics), to once again ratfuck whether ( ... OR NOT, aarghhh!) their party is in the majority or in the minority, the entire edifice of conservative academia, all right wing bloggers, all conservative gun-wielding militia leaders and members, all right wing evangelicals, of the spitting, all conservative business donors killing my government, every spitting poisonous head of the snake that is the conservative movement .. who will wish they could depart this world peaceably by natural causes (ah, but was Cummings' death by natural causes, weren't there pillows on his deathbed as on Scalia's, the fuck, when he checked out, inquiring conservative minds would want to know, wouldn't they?) as their final days crash on to their severed heads in goddamned uncivil war.

wj's argument that Clickbait is our fault is one of the most infuriating bits of blame-deflecting blatherskite it is possible to imagine. Unbelievable.

Janie, I was really really trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to make clear that Trump is definitely the fault of the folks who voted for him. But that the rest of us are not without blame either. That is, it isn't 100% virtue on us. Nothing more.

Kudlow, wrong eternally about every major economic turning point in the last 50 years, and extravagantly so, and the shit "journalist" Kernan "objectively" without "media bias" "interviewing" the space between the former's balls and his butthole are on my list, Kudlow shows up more than once.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-white-house-aide-kudlow-implies-deep-state-fed-staff-part-of-trump-resistance-2019-10-17?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Deep State? They'd better hope there is a deep state when savage chaos explodes.

What fucking bullshit.

It will be their only protection.

What hsh said at 11:26. Bigtime.

*****

Hartmut: I hope you know I was only teasing you. I couldn't remember "to-morrow" (with the hyphen) within my lifetime, but my memory being what it is, I looked it up. What about email/e-mail?

*****

john not mccain: Heh. At the company I recently retired from, "admins" were the people who kept our computers going. We no longer even had a role that you might label "secretary" or "administrative assistant." We had an office manager, but that was a managerial role. The secretaries disappeared when everyone started typing on their own keyboards.

My company had maybe 120 employees. My "administrative assistant" sister works for a mega-corporation, so it's a rather different context.

Deep state is like political correctness. It means whatever you want it to mean at the time if you're the sort of person inclined to use it. To other people, it might mean that the government has a bunch of non-political staff who do all sorts of things most people don't notice (but probably would notice if those staff members didn't do their jobs).

Sort of like political correctness just means "Don't be an a**hole" to people who don't use it as an insult. (These days, that is. It used to be a term of liberal infighting. Language evolves!)

hsh @11.26 perfectly expresses my own feelings too.

Sort of like political correctness just means "Don't be an a**hole" to people who don't use it as an insult.

i don't think anybody uses it except as an insult. even liberals roll their eyes when they use it.

I'm trying to think of a candidate for POTUS in my lifetime that I thought of us "likeable".

Carter, maybe Howard Dean.

Obama is a guy I had, and have, profound respect for, but even he had that weird competitive thing going on. Not a bad thing, in that position, but not warm and fuzzy either.

I like Warren mostly because she is smart and earnest and works her ass off and I think most of her positions are right on. Although if she is the nominee, if she hangs on to the "you're gonna have to give up your private insurance" thing, we're looking at four more years of Trump. But she definitely has that teacher vibe - she is going to explain how it oughta be to you, until you get it - and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Biden is actually somebody I find likeable, and for reasons that I think would make him a bad POTUS. This is not the time and place for the whole collegial, hail-fellow-well-met vibe. Plus I just don't think he has the energy for it at this point.

All of which is simply to point out that "likeability" is really not how people should be thinking about candidates for POTUS. It appears, sadly, to be one of the qualifications of *running* for the job, but it's utterly irrelevant to being good at it, and may in fact get in the way. The POTUS has to be an effective executive. Sometimes asses need to be kicked and heads need to be knocked.

My assumption is that anybody who gets within 10 miles of the office is some version of driven, ambitious workaholic. Anyone who comes to the office from any kind of significant political career has almost certainly made compromises of various kinds, because that's a big part of the gig. And pretty much anyone old enough to run for the office has some collection of baggage in their life.

We seem to have arrived at the place where the qualification for being . elected to be POTUS is whether you make people feel good about themselves. Which is not really a good situation.

JanieM, I follow the German custom of not hyphenatig email. One potential problem there is that email is also a (now) legit spelling in German for enamel (formerly Emaille).

I notice some people hyphenate no-one. I find that weird. Not as weird as human-insect hybrids or unexplained glowing orbs floating around or talking dogs or other stuff like that. Just a little weird.

I can see why some people found GWB to be likable, and can see even more why people find him likable now. I would probably find him likable if he were never (such a horrible) president. At any rate, look what his likability got us.

I take GWB to be a classic example of why "likeable" (aka "someone you'd like to have a beer with") is a really poor basis on which to choose a President.

Been seeing campaign signs (for a local office) for some dude named "NOONE".

I wonder how many voters will think that they're voting for "no-one".

And, as always, it's worth remembering that about 3 million more people voted for Clinton, than for Trump.

In all, about 10 million more people voted for someone other than Trump, than for Trump.

If "likeability" and "electability" were the only factors in play, he would not be President.

Too bad about the whole "We, the People" thing.

By purely random chance, Rump awarded the G-7 summit to a resort he happens to own. How do you do something like that under the current circumstances? I suppose his fans will say he's got "balls" or some such bullsh*t. I think it shows what a jackass he is.

remember that one time gave a speech?

shocking stuff.

missing noun. add your own. they all work.

Speaking of profiles in non-courage, here is the vote on the resolution in the House to condemn Trump's sell-out of the Kurds:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll560.xml

I refer not to the scum who voted against the resolution. But to the 4 individuals who could only bring themselves to vote "Present". Really, really pathetic.

i don't think anybody uses it except as an insult. even liberals roll their eyes when they use it.

Die hard Maoists used it, and did not roll their eyes. Politically correct was, you know, being CORRECT.

Alas, they were usually incorrect on just about everything.

But that the rest of us are not without blame either.

We lost. Not our fault. Please stop. On to the next circus.

Thank you.

looks like Turkey just annexed a chunk of Syria.

that'll lead to lasting peace.

looks like Turkey just annexed a chunk of Syria.

Brilliant! A whole new bunch of "mountain Turks" to be forcibly turned into Turks. Well, forcibly and massively unsuccessfully. Great recruiting tool for the PKK tho.

In case anyone is still in the dark about Biden's comments on getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired that had Marty so worked up a bit ago (so worked up that he wouldn't tell us what the comments were or provide a link after being asked to do so), here's a story about them. Most of the information is old hat at this point, but at least I finally know what Biden said.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamelder/joe-biden-ukraine-hunter

Oh, and Russian propaganda at work right here at Obsidian Wings! We got to see it in action first-hand.

but at least I finally know what Biden said.

interesting that RT and Sputnik were early adopters of that stuff. i wonder if Peter Schweizer (Trump's source for this scheisse) is a fan of theirs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9az6MMNZJl8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7fQgg_T9Gk

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad