The current narrative on the MAGA side seems to be: "They said it was a norms violation to prosecute your political opponents, then they did it to Trump. They swore up and down that mishandling classified documents was not an issue when Hillary did it ("but her emails" they sneered) then they went after him for that exact thing, even though Trump didn't end up going after Hillary for it in his first term. Plus the most contrived nonsense you ever saw with this NYC property thing. So obviously it's all who/whom and we're going to do unto them before they get the chance to do unto us again."
And you could argue about whether that's true, but I think the most salient point is that over the roughly 8 years prior to Trump's reelection, the DOJ and Democrats in general acted like they were actively trying to hand him that narrative and that moral high ground on a platter. And if that was their secretly their goal, it worked, because that narrative has gained purchase even among some non-MAGA types.
In purely practical terms, I think it's a mistake to back someone into a corner if you're not prepared for them to fight like someone cornered. Either go after him with conviction or don't go there. And well, they didn't have the conviction they needed, in both senses of the word.
They could have paid him off like they did with Al Gore. People were wiser then. They let Al Gore get a plane a Nobel Prize, even an Oscar for Powerpoint (most shameful award Al's ever won, let's face it -- getting to appear on Futurama was better for him.) Al Gore won Florida -- the free market (UK) said so, and paid out for people who bet Gore would win Florida.
You back Trump into a corner, and he has no choice but to run -- otherwise he ends up shanked in prison, by someone you totally didn't put there, just to do that.
I have the feeling that Trump is playing the League of Nations role. Going around to all the fighting countries, and saying "Here, I have money. Do you like money? Stop fighting, and we can all get more money."
Some people are still gonna wanna fight (like Israel/Palestine). But a lot of people have been fighting for so long that nobody really wants to fight anymore (like Rwanda/Congo) -- and Mr. Trump dangling a little bit of shiny cash (for a little bit of international prestige for America) is a tempting offer.
It's not like we didn't have Official Copies of all of the Maralago documents, Trump doesn't get to Hide Information by declassifying it. This is like the Presidential version of an overdue library book. He's not supposed to have it in his house, but... it's also not "oh, my god, we didn't get to see what he was doing!"
The issue with Clinton is that the Government never got to see some of her documents. She could have been issuing secret orders, without the ability of other responsible parties to come back later and vet them. (In fact, she very well might have been doing such. Given that Trump fired most of the Department of State, for having made near-treasonous promises predicated on her becoming President.)
Yes, I am an elite, and I absolutely will keep fighting this battle. Words have meaning, and using a premade phrase is already lazy, but using it wrong is lazy and ignorant.
Obviously people can use words in whatever way they want. But when you use "literally" as an emphasis, or you use "who" when it should be "whom", or you use "begs the question" incorrectly, you're signaling that you aren't well educated, and you don't care enough to educate yourself.
You realize geniuses signal they're lazy and ignorant all the time? It's a great way to be underestimated by midwits, who can only figure out intelligence based on "signs and signals" and not actual comprehension of ideas.
If a genius wants to pull the wool over my eyes by acting like an idiot, more power to them. The idea that there is any notable fraction of people using phrases and words wrong to be underestimated as a rule, is laughable.
On the contrary, it's a mark of elitism and stubborn clinging to the past to insist on the old definition. The phrase has an obvious, useful, literal meaning and therefore that meaning will displace the old one. It is inevitable.
Moreover, the old meaning of "begs the question" has other, less obscure formulations, such as "assuming the conclusion". There is no reason to use "begs the question" instead, and sticking to it suggests that you care more about showing off than you do about communicating clearly.
You can adapt, or you can keep fighting this losing battle and look like an ancient fossil grumbling about how "gay" no longer means "happy". It is not too late to choose sense over hoary tradition.
In other worlds for all intensive purposes we should just take it for granite that usage determines meaning and not the other weigh round, and if misagree you are literally putting the heart before the course.
The current narrative on the MAGA side seems to be: "They said it was a norms violation to prosecute your political opponents, then they did it to Trump. They swore up and down that mishandling classified documents was not an issue when Hillary did it ("but her emails" they sneered) then they went after him for that exact thing, even though Trump didn't end up going after Hillary for it in his first term. Plus the most contrived nonsense you ever saw with this NYC property thing. So obviously it's all who/whom and we're going to do unto them before they get the chance to do unto us again."
And you could argue about whether that's true, but I think the most salient point is that over the roughly 8 years prior to Trump's reelection, the DOJ and Democrats in general acted like they were actively trying to hand him that narrative and that moral high ground on a platter. And if that was their secretly their goal, it worked, because that narrative has gained purchase even among some non-MAGA types.
In purely practical terms, I think it's a mistake to back someone into a corner if you're not prepared for them to fight like someone cornered. Either go after him with conviction or don't go there. And well, they didn't have the conviction they needed, in both senses of the word.
They could have paid him off like they did with Al Gore. People were wiser then. They let Al Gore get a plane a Nobel Prize, even an Oscar for Powerpoint (most shameful award Al's ever won, let's face it -- getting to appear on Futurama was better for him.) Al Gore won Florida -- the free market (UK) said so, and paid out for people who bet Gore would win Florida.
You back Trump into a corner, and he has no choice but to run -- otherwise he ends up shanked in prison, by someone you totally didn't put there, just to do that.
"Greece had a real olive up their pita pouch."
Rim shot!
Love it!
My Laugh For The Day (MLFTD)!!!
that was offensive to me ackshully and no my ass is not a pita pouch ew
I have the feeling that Trump is playing the League of Nations role. Going around to all the fighting countries, and saying "Here, I have money. Do you like money? Stop fighting, and we can all get more money."
Some people are still gonna wanna fight (like Israel/Palestine). But a lot of people have been fighting for so long that nobody really wants to fight anymore (like Rwanda/Congo) -- and Mr. Trump dangling a little bit of shiny cash (for a little bit of international prestige for America) is a tempting offer.
It's not like we didn't have Official Copies of all of the Maralago documents, Trump doesn't get to Hide Information by declassifying it. This is like the Presidential version of an overdue library book. He's not supposed to have it in his house, but... it's also not "oh, my god, we didn't get to see what he was doing!"
The issue with Clinton is that the Government never got to see some of her documents. She could have been issuing secret orders, without the ability of other responsible parties to come back later and vet them. (In fact, she very well might have been doing such. Given that Trump fired most of the Department of State, for having made near-treasonous promises predicated on her becoming President.)
Yes, I am an elite, and I absolutely will keep fighting this battle. Words have meaning, and using a premade phrase is already lazy, but using it wrong is lazy and ignorant.
Obviously people can use words in whatever way they want. But when you use "literally" as an emphasis, or you use "who" when it should be "whom", or you use "begs the question" incorrectly, you're signaling that you aren't well educated, and you don't care enough to educate yourself.
Good job replying to your intended comment, Mister Elite.
You realize geniuses signal they're lazy and ignorant all the time? It's a great way to be underestimated by midwits, who can only figure out intelligence based on "signs and signals" and not actual comprehension of ideas.
If a genius wants to pull the wool over my eyes by acting like an idiot, more power to them. The idea that there is any notable fraction of people using phrases and words wrong to be underestimated as a rule, is laughable.
Big issue here. "begs the obvious question"? Excuse me? You're a professional word guy. You know that isn't what that means!
Nobody uses it the way you're thinking anymore.
There are literally people who do. And it's a mark of lazy writing (as George Orwell would say) or a lack of education to use the wrong version.
On the contrary, it's a mark of elitism and stubborn clinging to the past to insist on the old definition. The phrase has an obvious, useful, literal meaning and therefore that meaning will displace the old one. It is inevitable.
Moreover, the old meaning of "begs the question" has other, less obscure formulations, such as "assuming the conclusion". There is no reason to use "begs the question" instead, and sticking to it suggests that you care more about showing off than you do about communicating clearly.
You can adapt, or you can keep fighting this losing battle and look like an ancient fossil grumbling about how "gay" no longer means "happy". It is not too late to choose sense over hoary tradition.
So if enough people get it wrong enough times it becomes right. You know when you say things like this it literally makes the baby Jesus cry.
That's indeed how it works! If you disagree, you might be a nimrod, and you're not allowed to say that's an insult because of its original meaning. ;)
In other worlds for all intensive purposes we should just take it for granite that usage determines meaning and not the other weigh round, and if misagree you are literally putting the heart before the course.