Board 8 > Chris' political topic. Where Chris posts super casually about political stuff.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik posted...

Republicans at least had enough nuance to differentiate the two appointments. With proper context is a presidential election for lame duck president versus a midterm.

It bothers me that Republicans got away with completely redefining the term "lame duck" to suit their needs and everyone just accepted it.

Lame duck means the period after the election but before the next president has taken office. It doesn't mean the last year of a term or whatever period of time is deemed "close enough" to election.
---

It would seem under that definition, Obama was a lame duck as far back as November 2012
---

VintageGin posted...

It bothers me that Republicans got away with completely redefining the term "lame duck" to suit their needs and everyone just accepted it.

They're just lying through their teeth, and Corrik is (probably knowingly) perpetuating the lie.

I guess it's possible he's just wrong and ignorant instead.
---

VintageGin posted...

Lame duck means the period after the election but before the next president has taken office. It doesn't mean the last year of a term or whatever period of time is deemed "close enough" to election.

Not really. He was a lame duck president because he couldn't possibly win again since he was out of terms.
---

Corrik posted...

VintageGin posted...

Lame duck means the period after the election but before the next president has taken office. It doesn't mean the last year of a term or whatever period of time is deemed "close enough" to election.

Not really. He was a lame duck president because he couldn't possibly win again since he was out of terms.

Why do you always argue this stuff, dude?

A lame duck is literally "a person whose successor has already been chosen", not "a person who can't run again".
---

1. an elected official or group of officials, as a legislator, continuing in office during the period between an election defeat and a successor's assumption of office.

2. a president who is completing a term of office and chooses not to run or is ineligible to run for reelection.


I feel like you don't even try anymore.

He was in a lame duck year regardless as he couldn't have possibly won the election. Hence they said during a presidential election year with a lame duck president.
---

But, I get it. You will never admit your wrong. So let's just say "okay". Too casual for the incessant arguing.
---

Corrik posted...

1. an elected official or group of officials, as a legislator, continuing in office during the period between an election defeat and a successor's assumption of office.

2. a president who is completing a term of office and chooses not to run or is ineligible to run for reelection.


I feel like you don't even try anymore.

He was in a lame duck year regardless as he couldn't have possibly won the election. Hence they said during a presidential election year with a lame duck president.

Theoretically, wouldn't your definition imply Obama was a lame duck in 2012?
---

Inviso can you not read?
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

1. an elected official or group of officials, as a legislator, continuing in office during the period between an election defeat and a successor's assumption of office.

2. a president who is completing a term of office and chooses not to run or is ineligible to run for reelection.


I feel like you don't even try anymore.

He was in a lame duck year regardless as he couldn't have possibly won the election. Hence they said during a presidential election year with a lame duck president.

Theoretically, wouldn't your definition imply Obama was a lame duck in 2012?

Theoretically, wouldn't a dictionary imply that?

That said, this is entirely regards to presidential election year for a lame duck president.

I have sat here and watched people who just cannot accept these words because they want to apply this so bad to the midterms. Like, this is simply bittnerness talking at this point.

The two scenarios are different. There is not much else to say about it.

You may not have agreed to it the first time it was done. But it is not contradictory for it to not be applied now.
---

Corrik posted...

1. an elected official or group of officials, as a legislator, continuing in office during the period between an election defeat and a successor's assumption of office.

2. a president who is completing a term of office and chooses not to run or is ineligible to run for reelection.


I feel like you don't even try anymore.

He was in a lame duck year regardless as he couldn't have possibly won the election. Hence they said during a presidential election year with a lame duck president.

Where, specifically did you get this definition? I only see it on Quizlet.

Besides, the origin and definition of "Lame Duck" is literally "the time between a decision being made and it being implemented".

So, the "proper" use is after the replacement is selected, informally it could be used your way, but kind of defeats the specificity and purpose of the phrase.

Corrik posted...

But, I get it. You will never admit your wrong. So let's just say "okay". Too casual for the incessant arguing.

I wasn't even taking part in the discussion at this point in order to admit anything, but the snide comment is noted, lol.
---

Dictionary.com. No you came in here to act condescending about something you were wrong about as usual.

"Why do you always argue this stuff"
---

Merriam's example.

To maintain power as a lame duck for over six months is going to be really hard.

Joshua Jamerson, WSJ, "Farm Bills Defeat Marks Setback for Paul Ryan," 18 May 2018

I guess Paul Ryan has been replaced already with a chosen successor in your warped definition world.
---

Corrik posted...

Dictionary.com. No you came in here to act condescending about something you were wrong about as usual.

"Why do you always argue this stuff"

You were the one condescendingly arguing about an informal use of the phrase in the first place.

VintageGins post was 100% correct and you literally corrected him with Not really.
---

Corrik posted...

I guess Paul Ryan has been replaced already with a chosen successor in your warped definition world.

Its not warped lmao, its literally the 1st and 3rd definitions of the word on your original source, Dictionary.com
---

See what I mean? Literally just cannot admit you are wrong. Go to the other topic. This topic was made to stop this nonsense. Not for you to follow me around to continue trying to.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I guess Paul Ryan has been replaced already with a chosen successor in your warped definition world.

Its not warped lmao, its literally the 1st and 3rd definitions of the word on your original source, Dictionary.com

Warped definition world applying to where you pick and choose which definitions are valid. Thanks for making that clear with this post.
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I guess Paul Ryan has been replaced already with a chosen successor in your warped definition world.

Its not warped lmao, its literally the 1st and 3rd definitions of the word on your original source, Dictionary.com

Warped definition world applying to where you pick and choose which definitions are valid. Thanks for making that clear with this post.

You're quite literally saying that YOUR picking and choosing of definitions is more valid though.
---

Corrik posted...

See what I mean? Literally just cannot admit you are wrong. Go to the other topic. This topic was made to stop this nonsense. Not for you to follow me around to continue trying to.

Yo Pot, kettle, sup.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I guess Paul Ryan has been replaced already with a chosen successor in your warped definition world.

Its not warped lmao, its literally the 1st and 3rd definitions of the word on your original source, Dictionary.com

Warped definition world applying to where you pick and choose which definitions are valid. Thanks for making that clear with this post.

You're quite literally saying that YOUR picking and choosing of definitions is more valid though.

I can use ANY definition to explain a usage of a word. You are arguing that definition does not exist when it does.

You can't start deleting definitions to try and be right.

I stated the words. You said it wasn't valid. I showed how it was.

Literally should have at this point been. Thanks, Corrik, for showing me that. I understand now.

And here we are.
---

Ill fully admit that Lame Duck is colloquially used to describe the end of a term, and I made a mistake for specifying otherwise.

I was trying to point out the proper and original usage of the word is for after a successor has been chosen.

There.
---

So under corriks usage someone is a lame duck the moment they are elected for their 2nd term?
---

For the record, I was wrong. Excerpt from 1926 where it's used in a different manner entirely:

"... the voting in other Republican states should hinge pretty largely on the issue whether Mr. Coolidge shall be permitted to become a lame duck president for the final two years of his term."

Note the conditional.

It turns out lame duck is just a dumb term that no one can really agree on an actual definition for. It's not even exclusively a timing thing because people will argue that being effective makes you not a lame duck.
---

FWIW the lame duck session refers to

1) a discreet time period between November and January when a new president/congress has been elected and the new President/Congress is sworn in.

It was historically a bigger deal but they moved inauguration back from March til January

2) the term is sometimes used to refer to a President who still holds office but has no prospect of his party forming a majority in any house of government and usually entails a President being fairly unpopular such that opposing his policy initiatives would be politically priceless for either party (think W in 2007).

Should be noted that this is not the normal usage of the term and any use of the term for purposes other than the first definition is usually as a jab at the politician in question for being ineffectual.
---

The first definition is completely defined with distinct periods

The second is entirely abstract and depends on subjective measures. "Completing a term" is not defined and can thus be used to describe a president at any point of their 2nd term - it's open to the point of being moronic, worthless, and only useful for partisan hacks.

Corrik is just playing the stupid game that if someone misuses the word "literally" he can point to a dictionary to explain literally literally means the opposite of literally, and thus the usage of the word literally was totally correct!
---

*watches every extreme liberal from the other topic enter a completely different topic than their "containment topic" to follow me around and be concretely wrong about something that has already been proven with multiple reputable dictionary/encyclopedia sources*

Definitely peaf is next.

It is like they think if they all use herd mentality on something it changes reality.
---

When you think about it, we're all in the lame duck portion of our lives since we're just gonna die anyway. Why do anything at all?
---

Since you're always such a stickler for semantics, you claimed earlier that I was arguing that a definition did not exist, when in fact I said no such thing. My two posts prior to that accusation were A. pointing out the absurdity of using your chosen definition as a primary source, given that it could theoretically apply as early as at the 2012 presidential election for Obama, and B. pointing out that you were being condescending as hell in your responses to people who rightfully questioned how asinine the usage of that definition is, given how broadly it can be used. I'll accept an apology for you making a false accusation against me.
---

Corrik posted...

*watches every extreme liberal from the other topic enter a completely different topic than their "containment topic" to follow me around and be concretely wrong about something that has already been proven with multiple reputable dictionary/encyclopedia sources*

do you think they're all sworn to a pact and forbidden to leave that topic or something

how did you manage to enter that topic and leave to come here

what foul magicks allowed you to so easily escape the topic's grasp
---

sorry it took me so long, it's hard to follow corrik when you can't see his posts directly
---

VintageGin posted...

Corrik posted...

*watches every extreme liberal from the other topic enter a completely different topic than their "containment topic" to follow me around and be concretely wrong about something that has already been proven with multiple reputable dictionary/encyclopedia sources*

do you think they're all sworn to a pact and forbidden to leave that topic or something

how did you manage to enter that topic and leave to come here

what foul magicks allowed you to so easily escape the topic's grasp

Chris used an unholy magic to break that topics spell of binding. Lol
---

Inviso posted...

Since you're always such a stickler for semantics, you claimed earlier that I was arguing that a definition did not exist, when in fact I said no such thing. My two posts prior to that accusation were A. pointing out the absurdity of using your chosen definition as a primary source, given that it could theoretically apply as early as at the 2012 presidential election for Obama, and B. pointing out that you were being condescending as hell in your responses to people who rightfully questioned how asinine the usage of that definition is, given how broadly it can be used. I'll accept an apology for you making a false accusation against me.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can express it in a more concise and more understandable way, I will be happy to respond.
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I guess Paul Ryan has been replaced already with a chosen successor in your warped definition world.

Its not warped lmao, its literally the 1st and 3rd definitions of the word on your original source, Dictionary.com

Warped definition world applying to where you pick and choose which definitions are valid. Thanks for making that clear with this post.

You're quite literally saying that YOUR picking and choosing of definitions is more valid though.

I can use ANY definition to explain a usage of a word. You are arguing that definition does not exist when it does.

You can't start deleting definitions to try and be right.

I stated the words. You said it wasn't valid. I showed how it was.

Literally should have at this point been. Thanks, Corrik, for showing me that. I understand now.

And here we are.

You're claiming I said the definition you used wasn't valid. I said no such thing. I want an apology for leveling false accusations at me, and for doing it in an extremely condescending fashion.
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I guess Paul Ryan has been replaced already with a chosen successor in your warped definition world.

Its not warped lmao, its literally the 1st and 3rd definitions of the word on your original source, Dictionary.com

Warped definition world applying to where you pick and choose which definitions are valid. Thanks for making that clear with this post.

You're quite literally saying that YOUR picking and choosing of definitions is more valid though.

I can use ANY definition to explain a usage of a word. You are arguing that definition does not exist when it does.

You can't start deleting definitions to try and be right.

I stated the words. You said it wasn't valid. I showed how it was.

Literally should have at this point been. Thanks, Corrik, for showing me that. I understand now.

And here we are.

I assume you are referring to this string of posts?

I am referring to the WSJ author using the same exact term in regards to Paul Ryan in a similar situation. Final year of a term in which he will not be re-elected (due to resignation / relatable to term expiration).

I used warped definition world that the word could only apply to the singular definition chaos chooses it to be (when chaos isn't even the one who said it, but McConnell did).

Chaos said that it's not warped cuz it applies to definition 1and 3.

I replied you cannot simply omit a definition and it's application because it does not fit the statement you are wishing to argue. All definitions exist. It is clear to me that since the other definitions do not apply in the scenario that obviously the definition for the words which does apply was the logical one meant in the situation. (Though you could argue the 3rd was very valid also).

You said I am picking and choosing definitions. Which is silly. I am applying the one that fits the usage.

You cannot choose a definition which does not fit when one absolutely does fit and only accept that definition to argue someone was wrong in something. You have to look at all definitions, see which applies, and use that one. Otherwise you are just trying to change meaning to try and be right about something.

I never picked and chose definitions. I looked at all definitions and applied the logical one that fits the comment (though I knew it meant that also well before looking at that. We learned what lame duck meant in 5th grade social studies).

You seem hung up on the word "you". When you are being replied to from multiple different people, it is very likely "you" does "t apply to Inviso singularly.

It is another word, that maybe knowing the usage of would be appropriate.

Yes, you cannot just delete that definition from being there to argue that lame duck was not the scenario. It was. By definition. He was in the last year of the end of his eligibility for office with a Republican majority in both branches with an election about to happen for a replacement. He was a lame duck president in a presidential election year.

There is no reason this can't be accepted. It is concrete. It just lowers your credibility to argue against something of this sort.
---

Oh what the hell.

Over the past day this went from fairly chill politics topic to crazy pants on head conspiracy theories and circular, pointless arguments.
---

Scalia died just 23 days into Obamas lame duck year anyway.

Its not like that was ever a legitimate excuse
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh what the hell.

Over the past day this went from fairly chill politics topic to crazy pants on head conspiracy theories and circular, pointless arguments.

Look who emerged and where the topic went. Obvious enough what happened here. = /
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Scalia died just 23 days into Obamas lame duck year anyway.

Its not like that was ever a legitimate excuse

I agree it was pretty flimsy. That is why I said I go back and forth between it was a genius political move and a travesty.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Scalia died just 23 days into Obamas lame duck year anyway.

Its not like that was ever a legitimate excuse

I agree it was pretty flimsy. That is why I said I go back and forth between it was a genius political move and a travesty.

Theres no reason it cant be both
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Scalia died just 23 days into Obamas lame duck year anyway.

Its not like that was ever a legitimate excuse

I agree it was pretty flimsy. That is why I said I go back and forth between it was a genius political move and a travesty.

Theres no reason it cant be both

That is true.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Scalia WAS ASSASSINATED just 23 days into his murderers lame duck year anyway.

Its not like that was ever a legitimate excuse

Sorry, needed to edit myself for accuracy
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Scalia died just 23 days into Obamas lame duck year anyway.

Its not like that was ever a legitimate excuse

I agree it was pretty flimsy. That is why I said I go back and forth between it was a genius political move and a travesty.

Theres no reason it cant be both

^^

Something being morally/ethically wrong can still be genius.

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh what the hell.

Over the past day this went from fairly chill politics topic to crazy pants on head conspiracy theories and circular, pointless arguments.

Look who emerged and where the topic went. Obvious enough what happened here. = /

Mm. Good point and probably true.
---

My memory is terrible anymore on some things. I can't even remember how Scalia died. Wasn't it just old age in his sleep?
---

Corrik posted...

My memory is terrible anymore on some things. I can't even remember how Scalia died. Wasn't it just old age in his sleep?

One theory is that an overweight, out of shape, 79 year old with many known health conditions died of natural causes in his sleep.

The other is that President Obama sent hit men into his home, unbeknownst to his family, and had him murdered by smothering him with a pillow.

So the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
---

Corrik posted...

My memory is terrible anymore on some things. I can't even remember how Scalia died. Wasn't it just old age in his sleep?

Yes

But the conspiracy theory claims he was smothered by a pillow
---

So just to be clear...

I make a post saying "you're" and "your" and you personally feel attacked and are thus owed an apology.

YOU (and I'm referring to Corrik, not the collective you) quote MY post, asserting: "YOU are arguing that the definition doesn't exist, when it does", "YOU can't start deleting definitions to be right", "YOU said it wasn't valid."

If your half-assed excuse to weasel out of an apology (for the very thing you claim the collective I owe you an apology for) is that "you" means something other than just "Inviso", then you STILL owe me an apology because either you made a mistake and assumed I was someone else (thus your response was not directed at me, despite quoting my post specifically), or you were referring to "extreme liberals" as a collective, given your condescending follow-up post about how they all followed you just to arguing about something they got wrong, and happened to lump me into that group by, again, quoting MY post. You lumped me under an umbrella for something I hadn't done.

So I want my apology. Unless you're okay with being a coward and a hypocrite.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

My memory is terrible anymore on some things. I can't even remember how Scalia died. Wasn't it just old age in his sleep?

One theory is that an overweight, out of shape, 79 year old with many known health conditions died of natural causes in his sleep.

The other is that President Obama sent hit men into his home, unbeknownst to his family, and had him murdered by smothering him with a pillow.

So the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

So then the truth would be that, for years, Obama had surreptitiously presented Scalia with opportunity after opportunity to eat his favorite unhealthy foods
---

Yes, your side in the argument was a collective group of people arguing against me and one in which I was referring to.

If you did not wish to be referred to along with them as a group of people, I feel sorry but that was the arguments whose side you took up with.

But, if it makes you feel better, I don't think you are one of the extremist branch of liberals.

I generally hold that title for reg, peaf, eddv, gmun, ry, and possibly a couple of others.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

My memory is terrible anymore on some things. I can't even remember how Scalia died. Wasn't it just old age in his sleep?

One theory is that an overweight, out of shape, 79 year old with many known health conditions died of natural causes in his sleep.

The other is that President Obama sent hit men into his home, unbeknownst to his family, and had him murdered by smothering him with a pillow.

So the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

So then the truth would be that, for years, Obama had surreptitiously presented Scalia with opportunity after opportunity to eat his favorite unhealthy foods

Clearly Obama didn't offer the man a gym membership perk for being a supreme Court Justice. Pretty messed up.
---

Obama the diet saboteur strikes again.
---