ChrisWeigant.com

Literally, The Curated And Totes Artisanal Banished Words List From The Influencers At L.S.S.U.

[ Posted Thursday, January 2nd, 2020 – 21:37 UTC ]

A new year, as always, means many things to many people, but to the folks up at Lake Superior State University in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, it means it is time once again for the annual official "Banished Words List." Hey, with the winters they have to put up with in the frigid Upper Peninsula, I think we can all agree that they deserve a little fun at the dawn of each new year. So without further ado, let's check out the full list:


Quid pro quo

Artisanal

Curated

Influencer

Literally

I mean

Living my best life

Mouthfeel

Chirp

Jelly

Totes

Vibe / vibe check

OK, Boomer

The list is a bit shorter than in years past, but for the first time (in my memory, at any rate) it is subdivided into categories. The first entry was listed as "The Most Nominated Word or Phrase for 2020," which is obviously a category of one. The next three (artisanal, curated, influencer) were listed as "Words that Attempt to Make Something More than It Is." Next up was "Words Banished for Pretentiousness or Imprecision," which included literally, I mean, living my best life, and mouthfeel. And then all the rest were lumped into the "Those Darn Millennials!" at the end.

Quid pro quo wasn't just the most popular entry, it also had the funniest (if tongue-in-cheek) commentary: "The popularity of this phrase has the committee wondering what it should offer in exchange for next year's nominations." Heh. But some of the best commentary came from the nominations, such as the thinking behind banning curated: "Save it for the museum." And some came from external sources, such as the Urban Dictionary definition of influencer: "A word Instagram users use to describe themselves to make them feel famous and more important when no one really know who they are or care."

I have to admit I was surprised that literally hasn't been banned before, since (as the committee points out) it has become "one of the few words in English that has begun to serve as its own antonym." And, as always, some of the definitions were necessary for these terms, such as: "A word used by foodies to describe the texture of food or drink in the mouth" for mouthfeel.

They saved a few teenerisms for the end, which are nothing more than a hipper-than-thou shortening of normal words: "jelly" for jealous and "totes" for totally. Again, I have to admit being surprised that totes hasn't already been banned, since it is so instantly and obviously annoying. And rounding out the list is a term that is sure to only gain in usage since it is such a new one: "OK, boomer!"

As I am wont to do (Has "wont" been banned yet? Probably....), I have to conclude by jamming all the newly-banned words and phrases into one paragraph to get 2020 rolling:

 

As an influencer of language online who enjoys writing artisanal bits of prose to be curated on the ChrisWeigant.com site, I have to express my hope that at the end of this year we can all say we've been living our best lives. I mean, 2020 could literally be the best year ever! Whether you're a quid pro quo bro or a quid pro no, after impeachment's over we're hoping the vibe is totes amazing right up through November. We hope the election has as good a mouthfeel as a fine wine, and makes Trump downright jelly of whichever Democrat sends him packing, to chirp angrily no more. Whether the younger set sees their favorite candidate win or whether they have to settle for an "OK boomer" type, either way here's hoping for a great result!

 

[Program Note: Just in case you didn't notice, there were actually two columns this Thursday, to make up for some of the days I slacked off during the holidays. For a much more serious new year's column, please check out the column I posted earlier today.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

74 Comments on “Literally, The Curated And Totes Artisanal Banished Words List From The Influencers At L.S.S.U.”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, not all quid pro guos can be put in the same category.

    If they could, then Senator Biden would have even more explaining to do, you know.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have a word and its variations to nominate for next year because, by then, it will more than qualify:

    troll, trolls, trolled, trolling etc. etc.

    I'd certainly be happy enough if I never see that word tapped out around here.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Literally may be banned but it certainly won't be banished - it's a Biden word, after all ...

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While I usually find this list a waste of time and who cares what these people think should be banned, I thought for a moment there might be something I agree with in the list when I saw the word totes in the title.

    My mom is always complaining about all the tote bags she gets from organizations she donates to.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    and makes Trump downright jelly of whichever Democrat sends him packing, to chirp angrily no more.

    Ya'all realize that, the more you hype up this fantasy, they harder it's gonna be for ya'all come 4 Nov 2020, right??

    Ya'all realize that... Right??

    As for my suggestion??

    Please, PLEASE include "woke" in that list..

    It's is the most stoopid and pretentious words/definitions ever created..

    As an aside..

    Ya'all ever notice how it's always Democrats who create the most pretentious and elitist words/definitions??

    I find that little factoid fascinating..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, not all quid pro guos can be put in the same category.

    Exactly..

    Quid Pro Quo is an essential tool in US Diplomacy...

    To criminalize it is one of the more hilarious and moronic things Democrats have tried..

    Right up there with trying to make "Obstruction Of Congress" a crime... :D

    Another name for "Obstruction Of Congress" is "Politics As Usual".... :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have a word and its variations to nominate for next year because, by then, it will more than qualify:

    troll, trolls, trolled, trolling etc. etc.

    I'd certainly be happy enough if I never see that word tapped out around here.

    I don't mind the word.. What I mind is how Weigantians (and Democrats in general) define the word...

    Basically, ya'all and Democrats define "TROLL" as someone who says something ya'all don't like or don't agree with..

    Speaking of...

    Where has Paula gotten herself to??? Haven't heard from her in ages...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, on the International Scene..

    Terrorist general with the blood of THOUSANDS on his hands: Qassem Soleimani masterminded the killing of hundreds of US troops in IED attacks, helped Assad slaughter his people in Syria, was an ally of Hezbollah and 'more powerful than Iran's president'

    Qassem Soleimani killed in US drone strike on Baghdad airport late Thursday

    Quds general was seen as second-most powerful man in Iran and future leader

    He fought against Iraq during invasion of Iran in 1980, became commander of a division before he was 30, and promoted to Quds commander in 2002

    Soleimani helped Shia militias kill hundreds of US troops with IEDs, backed Assad as he slaughtered civilians, and oversaw killing of protesters in Iraq
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7847905/Qassem-Soleimani-terrorist-general-blood-THOUSANDS-hands.html

    THIS is the guy that Democrats are defending...

    THIS is the guy that Democrats say President Trump should not have assassinated..

    THIS is why Democrats will lose and lose big in 2020..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I am telling Americans, especially Trump, we will take a revenge that will change their daylight into to a nighttime darkness.”
    -Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami

    Blaa Blaaa Blaaa Blaaa

    And the US will change Iran into a glass covered parking lot..

    Care to up the ante, dickweed???

    The US didn't start this fight.. But the US will damn well finish it..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Footage shows aftermath of US airstrike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Suleimani – video
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2020/jan/03/footage-shows-aftermath-of-us-airstrike-that-killed-top-iranian-general-qassem-suleimani-video

    Let this be a lesson to those who would kill or harm Americans..

    Your time on this earth will be cut short....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rose McGowan tweets apology to Iran for killing Soleimani, says US is 'held hostage by terrorist regime'
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-twitter-apology-iran-killing-suleimani-usa-held-hostage-terrorist-regime

    Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani,"
    -Democrat Party

    :eyeroll:

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    tactically i think the assassination was a good decision; a show of force in response to provocation. i think it's unfortunate that we had been headed in that direction to begin with, but given where we were it was possibly the best decision donald could have made in the moment.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    tactically i think the assassination was a good decision; a show of force in response to provocation. i think it's unfortunate that we had been headed in that direction to begin with, but given where we were it was possibly the best decision donald could have made in the moment.

    Color me impressed... :D

    Not that it's surprising in any way..

    But impressive nonetheless...

    Kewpie doll for you..

    Please remind me of this the next time I claim "NO ONE" here ever gives President Trump credit for any good.. :D

  15. [15] 
    John M wrote:

    [8] Michale w

    "THIS is the guy that Democrats are defending...

    THIS is the guy that Democrats say President Trump should not have assassinated..

    THIS is why Democrats will lose and lose big in 2020.."

    Once again, you are WRONG.

    Democrats are NOT defending this guy personally.

    I have not seen one post anywhere online saying that anywhere.

    What Democrats are criticizing is inflaming the situation by killing this guy:

    1) Without informing ANY of our allies

    2) Without informing the Iraqi government, and thereby ignoring Iraqi sovereignty

    3) Without being prepared for the retaliation that is sure to come

    4) For shooting from the hip without taking all the long term repercussions into account and planning for and being prepared for contingencies.

    This is the guy who was what amounts to second in command and the heir apparent of the Iranian government.

    Killing him is tantamount to declaring war with Iran without first getting Congressional approval.

    It would be like if a foreign government killed our own Vice president.

    Trump was supposed to get us out of wars in the Mideast. That's WHY he was elected.

    Not get us involved in another 18 year long war, this time with Iran, a nation 10 times larger in population and military than either Iraq or Afghanistan in a rouge way on our own without allied support.

    Are you really foolish enough to believe that the American people are really prepared for that???

  16. [16] 
    John M wrote:

    We started down this road ever since Trump tore up Obama's nuclear deal with Iran FOR NO GOOD REASON.

    Ever since, Trump has been trying to get Iran to sign another deal with increasing hostile rhetoric and actions and has gotten the same amount of success with Iran that any bully would who has no clue what he is doing diplomatically.

    By the way, while the deal with Obama was in effect, Iran was behaving itself for the most part, with NO attacks happening on ships in the Persian Gulf, on Saudi oil fields, ETC.

    Trump just made everything WORSE

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you really foolish enough to believe that the American people are really prepared for that???

    I can tell you I am NOT foolish enough to believe that all of what you just said comes from your hatred of President Trump and has no basis in fact or reality..

    We started down this road ever since Trump tore up Obama's nuclear deal with Iran FOR NO GOOD REASON.

    Tore it up for a VERY good reason.. It was a shitty deal and put Iran on the road to a guaranteed nuclear arsenal..

    Trump just made everything WORSE

    Of course you would claim that..

    You have been claiming that since 10 Nov 2016...

    And, once again, you will be wrong..

    Just like you always are..

    By the way, while the deal with Obama was in effect, Iran was behaving itself for the most part, with NO attacks happening on ships in the Persian Gulf, on Saudi oil fields, ETC.

    Bullshit..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, JM, you are advocating we should let Iranian terrorists continue to attack and kill Americans with impunity..

    It's called APPEASEMENT... AKA THE COWARD OF THE COUNTRY..

    It NEVER works..

    "Earth. Hitler. 1939"
    -Captain James T. Kirk, STAR TREK VI The Undiscovered Country

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lindsey Graham: Qassem Soleimani is dead because he 'miscalculated' President Trump

    Graham: Iran will come after us with a vengeance if we don't reset the table quickly after Soleimani strike
    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham tells 'Fox & Friends' that the Trump administration needs to make clear the consequences of any retaliation against the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.

    Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani is dead because he miscalculated how President Trump would respond to an impending attack against Americans in Iraq, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Friday on "Fox & Friends."

    "The intelligence was that Soleimani was orchestrating chaos in Iraq at our expense and throughout the region," Graham explained. "The president was informed of these potential attacks and he acted. This was a defensive strike to neutralize future attacks that were planned and executed by Soleimani and the popular mobilization front: the Shiite militias in Iraq."

    Graham said Trump acted to prevent "holy hell" from occurring in Iraq and the region and Soleimani did not think the United States would take such a bold action.

    "He's not dead today because of what he did in the past, he's dead today because he miscalculated what President Trump would do regarding future attacks," said Graham in a phone interview.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/lindsey-graham-qassem-soleimani-iran-trump

    President Trump just saved hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of innocent American lives..

    OF COURSE Demcorats attack President Trump for it.. :eyeroll:

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It could be that the escalation with Iran is just another instance of Trump hearing something but not quite hearing it right.

    He might have heard the saying "war is hell" and thought it was "war is help".

    So Trump interpreted that as meaning war would help his re-election campaign.

    And Sandy says "ARFF!" :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    He might have heard the saying "war is hell" and thought it was "war is help".

    So Trump interpreted that as meaning war would help his re-election campaign.

    Considering that President Trump is on record SO MANY TIMES as stating it's his goal to AVOID more wars..

    I have to chalk up all the hysteria to simply more Trump hatred without a shred of fact or reality..

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Considering Trump is on record so many times saying things or what he will or is doing that are not true, his statement that it's his goal to avoid more wars is what is without a shred of fact or reality.

    For the people that believe that, of course, it has nothing to do with hatred of other sides/perspectives.

    It is simply love being blind or at least Trump lovers choosing to ignore facts and reality becsuse they don't want to have think about things and admit the object of their affection is the equivalent of raw sewage.

    This is not hate for Trump because he is president or a Republican.

    This is simply reaching a reasonable conclusion from the evidence presented over the decades on Trump from way back into the 1970's and when he was supporting Democrats.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering Trump is on record so many times saying things or what he will or is doing that are not true, his statement that it's his goal to avoid more wars is what is without a shred of fact or reality.

    And yet, the facts show that President Trump has been winding down the war in Afghanistan and has refrained from starting new conflicts..

    This is simply reaching a reasonable conclusion from the evidence presented over the decades on Trump from way back into the 1970's and when he was supporting Democrats.

    And Democrats LOVED him.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this.

    Killing the scumbag was a GOOD for the United States and GOOD for the world..

    It's only bad for the Democrats because they hate giving President Trump credit for ANYTHING...

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Quid Pro Quo is an essential tool in US Diplomacy...

    and guns are a tool for self-defense. if you use a gun to hold up a liquor store, or use a quid pro quo to hold up a country, the problem isn't that you drew your weapon, it's that you did it for a selfish, illegal purpose.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    and guns are a tool for self-defense. if you use a gun to hold up a liquor store, or use a quid pro quo to hold up a country, the problem isn't that you drew your weapon, it's that you did it for a selfish, illegal purpose.

    Yes, exactly..

    But Democrats *DID NOT* make that distinction when they were screaming hysterically about 'quid pro quo'...

    And, CW did not make that distinction..

    So you can't use that as an affirmative defense of the actions of Democrats..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am further constrained to ask, if President Trump used quid pro quo for selfish reasons, WHY didn't Democrats make that one of the Articles Of Impeachment??

    I'll tell you why..

    Because they couldn't PROVE it...

    It's that simple..

  28. [28] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    To the contrary, Mike. The Articles of Impeachment specifically say that Trump was trading these things for selfish reasons. See, for instance, page 3, line 3: "President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit." Not only can they prove it, but it's the Basis of the Complaint.

    Have no idea what you've been drinking.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet, he wasn't charged with it..

    It's like a guy committing murder, but the DA charges him with disorderly conduct...

    It's moronic.. If you can prove quid pro quo/murder then charge him with it and then prove it.

    If you can't prove quid pro quo/murder then all you have is your dick in yer hand..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Dumbocrats can PROVE bribery and PROVE quid pro quo, what is the reasoning to NOT charge those crimes??

    Even JL expressed puzzlement at why Democrats went the route of MAKING UP bullshit "crimes" that don't exist..

    So, what's the Dumbocrat reasoning in NOT charging REAL crimes if they can supposedly PROVE those crimes??

    The fact is, Dumbocrats CAN'T prove those crimes, so they couldn't charge President Trump with anything but made up crimes that don't exist..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact is, Dumbocrats CAN'T prove those crimes, so they couldn't charge President Trump with anything but made up crimes that don't exist..

    This is ALSO evidenced by the Pelosi's bonehead move on not sending the AOI to the Senate..

    She KNOWS it will be laughed out of the Senate..

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, that's horseshit. All through these documents are phrases spelling out exactly what he did.

    And of course, congress could be much more specific if the administration wasn't hiding witnesses from them.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, that's horseshit. All through these documents are phrases spelling out exactly what he did.

    AND YET, HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH ANY OF IT..

    You don't claim to have PROOF POSITIVE of murder and then charge the murderer with HAVING AN OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOK..

    What part of that is unclear to you??

    And of course, congress could be much more specific if the administration wasn't hiding witnesses from them.

    President Trump is simply exercising EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE as Odumbo did before him..

    Why didn't Dumbocrats wait for the courts to rule??

    Because they KNEW they would lose..

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    AND YET, HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH ANY OF IT..

    He was too. Besides, there's still room to charge him with more AFTER the election.

    Just cause you can say it, doesn't make it true.

    President Trump is simply exercising EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

    Why? No classified communications here. Just a big cover-up. Democrats didn't want to wait for the Courts because that could take years.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    He was too.

    Why do you insist on lying??

    There are 2 Articles of Impeachment..

    ABUSE OF POWER which is not a crime

    and

    OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS... ALSO not a crime.

    No bribery in the charge, no quid pro quo in the charge.... No nothing..

    It's like saying a guy is guilty of murder and you can PROVE it, but you only charge him with HAVING AN OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOK..

    Which is ***ALSO*** NOT a crime..

    Why? No classified communications here. Just a big cover-up.

    Just like Odumbo with FAST FURIOUS..

    Thereby once again PROVING, it's nothing but R v D...

    Democrats didn't want to wait for the Courts because that could take years.

    No.. They could have fast tracked it and had an answer within weeks..

    They didn't want to wait because they KNEW they would lose..

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No bribery in the charge, no quid pro quo in the charge.... No nothing..It's like saying a guy is guilty of murder and you can PROVE it, but you only charge him with HAVING AN OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOK..Which is ***ALSO*** NOT a crime..

    Really? Cause you're fighting awful hard over an overdue library book. Won't allow the librarian to testify.

    Abuse of Power: includes pressure against Ukraine to secure a statement about an investigation against the Bidens, and into a made-up story about a server which Ukraine supposedly has. It also includes the withholding of military aid to Ukraine. An attempted crime.

    Obstruction of Congress: This is a crime. It's not even debatable.

    They could have fast tracked it

    I notice that Don McGahan's depositions are still an issue in the Courts.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Cause you're fighting awful hard over an overdue library book. Won't allow the librarian to testify.

    I fighting awful hard against your lies that President Trump is charged with something he hasn't been..

    Abuse of Power: includes pressure against Ukraine to secure a statement about an investigation against the Bidens, and into a made-up story about a server which Ukraine supposedly has. It also includes the withholding of military aid to Ukraine. An attempted crime.

    Then CHARGE him with the crime..

    Democrats CAN'T because they CAN'T PROVE the crime..

    ABUSE OF POWER is ***NOT*** a crime..

    I notice that Don McGahan's depositions are still an issue in the Courts.

    Then why didn't Democrats wait on the courts before ram-rodding thru the Articles Of Impeachment??

    There obviously isn't any hurry as evidenced by Pelosi sitting on the Articles..

    They don't want to wait because they KNOW they will lose..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial in which the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses, yet the Republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the American people,”
    -Cuck Schumer

    Fine.. We'll hear from witnesses..

    Adam Schiff... Joe Biden... Hunter Biden... The Whistleblower..

    Chucky boy wants witnesses... We'll have witnesses..

    The GOP is in charge.. And they are going to be as fair and impartial as House Democrats were..

    It's that simple..

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Quid Pro Quo is an essential tool in US Diplomacy...To criminalize it is one of the more hilarious and moronic things Democrats have tried..

    Well, Michale, you are right about 'quid pro quo' or getting something in return for something else is certainly a big part of foreign relations and policy.

    But, what you fail to do here is discern between the everyday quid pro quo that is a regular part of relating with foreign nations -friends, allies and enemies alike - that is of benefit to the parties involved with respect to their respective national interests, with the key word being "national".

    President Trump is charged with pressuring an ally to do something for him that would be of supposed great political benefit to him at the expense of what is in American national interests.

    You see, Michale, not all quid pro quos are created equally. Some can, in fact, go against a presidential oath.

    To illustrate, the quid pro quo that Biden offered up to the Ukrainian president was not only in the national interest of America and supported by the entire Obama administration, but also in the national interests of, and supported by, Europe.

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Democrats CAN'T because they CAN'T PROVE the crime..

    Bullshit. Give us a free, open trial and our four witnesses, and we can prove the crime! Your side doesn't want a trial. Anything but that!

    The GOP is in charge.. And they are going to be as fair and impartial as House Democrats were..

    How sad. I remember when the parties tried to outdo each other in fairness. If you do a fair trial, it strengthens your case. If not, your guy never gets the fairly vindicated. Think about that!

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If not, your guy never gets fairly vindicated.

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    In politics quid quo pro refers to the use of political office for personal benefit...not the official negotiating of the terms of a contract/treaty.

    Again, this misuse of the normal semantics regarding a term is all that Michale is left with to defend Trump.

    Michale screeching on and on how the Democrats cannot prove Trump committed bribery or extortion would maybe matter more if that was what the Articles of Impeachment listed as part of his charges.

    Michale has to work hard to ignore that Trump has prevented Democrats from uncovering any of the evidence that would undoubtedly prove his guilt. Ordering agencies to refuse all requests for documents/information and telling employees to ignore subpoenas to answer investigators questions makes “proving” Trump committed a federal crime difficult.

    “But Obama...” Yawn! Was Obama being impeached? Nope, yet he still handed over thousands of documents that Congress had requested. And Bill Clinton even answered investigators questions. Trump cannot do either because Russublicans
    know that he is guilty! But his refusal to comply to requests does make proving the charges of Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power fairly straightforward!

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I notice that Don McGahan's depositions are still an issue in the Courts.

    Then why didn't Democrats wait on the courts before ram-rodding thru the Articles Of Impeachment??

    Because it could take until 2021 for the Supreme Court to make a final ruling on the issues, and the Democrats do not want the impeachment trial to be used as a campaign distraction in the 2020 election. The DOJ has proven it is serving as Trump’s personal attorney by ignoring legal precedents set during the impeachment’s of Clinton and Jackson and the inquiry of Nixon. Intentionally delaying the release of documents by offering up legal arguments that are frivolous also helps prove both Article of Impeachment, however.

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    In politics quid quo pro refers to the use of political office for personal benefit...not the official negotiating of the terms of a contract/treaty.

    Now, I'm confused. So, you think that what Biden did with his quid pro quo was wrong.

    You're going to have to explain that to me … like I'm a six-year-old ...

  45. [45] 
    andygaus wrote:

    "Literally" is a very old problem. Frederick Douglass in his autobiography talks of the American public being "literally swept off their feet" by something or other. A particularly wonderful instance of its usage was offered by John Lakian, when campaigning for a Senate seat in Massachusetts. He said that he had been so careful about the propriety of his campaign contributions that he had been "literally Caesar's wife."

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I was not saying what Biden did was wrong (b/c it was not wrong); I was simply pointing out that it isn’t proper to refer to legitimate negotiations by politicians as being a “quid pro quo”, as that is generally reserved for more criminal elements — like when a politician trades favors for personal gain.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that's fair enough, my friend. :)

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    President Trump is charged with pressuring an ally to do something for him that would be of supposed great political benefit to him at the expense of what is in American national interests.

    You mean like when Obama asked Putin for some help to win his (Obama's) election and promised something in return??

    Do you mean like that??

    You see, Michale, not all quid pro quos are created equally. Some can, in fact, go against a presidential oath.

    Like Obama's... I don't recall ya'all screaming for impeachment back then, eh?

    To illustrate, the quid pro quo that Biden offered up to the Ukrainian president was not only in the national interest of America and supported by the entire Obama administration,

    Except Obama refuses to confirm that..

    Why is that??

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bullshit. Give us a free, open trial and our four witnesses, and we can prove the crime! Your side doesn't want a trial. Anything but that!

    House Democrats were supposed to make the case.. That's how impeachment works.

    It's not the GOP's fault that House Dumbos dropped the ball..

    How sad. I remember when the parties tried to outdo each other in fairness. If you do a fair trial, it strengthens your case. If not, your guy never gets the fairly vindicated. Think about that!

    YOUR DUMBOCRATS should have thought of that when they weren't being fair in the House..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    know that he is guilty! But his refusal to comply to requests does make proving the charges of Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power fairly straightforward!

    There are no such crimes as ABUSE OF POWER nor OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS..

    If Dumbocrats have such a sure-fire case, why did they have to MAKE UP non-existent "crimes"??

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    hehehehehehehe

    Maxine Waters' phone call with 'Greta Thunberg' was apparently the work of Russian pranksters
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/maxine-waters-russian-pranksters-greta-thunberg-trump

    Democrats are SOOO consumed with hate, they'll believe ANYTHING...

    As long as it's against President Trump... :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    like when a politician trades favors for personal gain.

    Like when Obama traded help with the election and gave flexibility to Putin afterwards..

    Funny how ya'all didn't care about quid pro quo then, eh??

    Oh, that's right.. Obama has a -D after his name so HE can do stuff like that and ya'all will applaud him for it..

    Got it.. {wink wink}

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    There are no such crimes as ABUSE OF POWER nor OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS..

    since its creation in 14th century england, impeachment has never been constrained by previously existing statute. the reason for this is that the process presupposes that monarchs (and later presidents) would always be coming up with new ways to abuse their authority. while the constitution explicitly bans ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, it leaves impeachment intact as an open-ended check on the power of the executive.

    based on what i've read, the house seriously considered bringing charges of bribery and extortion, but consciously chose not to, because statutory requirements for those crimes were not relevant to the question of whether or not the president criminally abused the power of his office. abuse of power and obstruction of a constitutionally mandated authority of congress are not an overdue library book.

    they might just as well have brought the president of on charges of "let the evidence speak for itself."

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    of on charges -> up on charges

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    they might just as well have brought the president of on charges of "let the evidence speak for itself."

    OK.. Let's let the evidence speak for itself.

    NO NEW EVIDENCE is required..

    based on what i've read, the house seriously considered bringing charges of bribery and extortion, but consciously chose not to, because statutory requirements for those crimes were not relevant to the question of whether or not the president criminally abused the power of his office.

    I respect your opinion, but it is only just that..

    We don't know the inner workings of the House on this.

    But we DO know the end result..

    2 bullshit claims that are not crimes and universal concession by Democrats that the House Impeachment was not good enough..

    THAT is where we are at right now..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is this..

    House Democrats KNEW that the GOP would have control of Impeachment once it went to the Senate..

    House Dems KNEW this, so they should have made the BEST CASE THEY POSSIBLY COULD.... A really REALLY good case that would convince the American people and even bring some GOP'ers over to the Dems' side..

    Why didn't House Democrats make that case??

    ** BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THAT KIND OF CASE **

    So, House Dims threw together some bullshit hearsay and random innuendo and rumor slapped a couple of bullshit NON-CRIME labels on it and said, "OK.. We're done!!!"

    And **NOW** Democrats are whining and bitching because the GOP won't let them make a better case..

    Dems had their shot.. They blew it.

    Ya'all know I am factually accurate.. No one can bring themselves to concede that..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, ya'all's argument is this:

    Democrats could have easily made a case for bribery, extortion, and quid pro quo.. They simply chose NOT to make that case..

    Now, step back away from you Party loyalty and and look at that argument..

    Does that make ***ANY*** kind of sense???

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that's not what i meant at all. what i'm saying is the elements of bribery, extortion and quid pro quo are all in the articles. however, naming the articles any of those three would place an unnecessary statutory limit on the accusation. the main accusation is as follows:

    using the power of his high office, president trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the 2020 united states presidential election.

    at least that much has been proven beyond all possible doubt.

    https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    obama, bush and clinton didn't do that. even nixon didn't do that. in that respect, donald is unique. was it illegal? should any future president be allowed to do it? after we cut through all the partisan nonsense, those are the real questions.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's not what i meant at all. what i'm saying is the elements of bribery, extortion and quid pro quo are all in the articles.

    Why settle for ambiguous "elements" when they could have had actual TANGIBLE REAL charges???

    Because the facts don't "prove" the elements beyond a reasonable doubt..

    at least that much has been proven beyond all possible doubt.

    If it were proven beyond all possible doubt, then why didn't Democrats CHARGE the President with it??

    That's the question ya'all can't answer..

    obama, bush and clinton didn't do that

    Bullshit..

    "Please tell Vlad that if he can give me some slack (IE HELP) in my next election, I can be more flexible for him after I am elected.."
    Barack Obama

    That's a HELLUVA lot more blatant and obvious than what ya'all accuse President Trump of..

    And THAT is proved beyond ANY doubt because it's Obama's OWN WORDS..

    So, please.. Don't insult my intelligence and try to make the claim Obama didn't do it... Because the facts CLEARLY show he did..

    As for Clinton?? Maybe he was too busy raping and sexually harassing young interns to worry about it..

    Hardly a point in his favor..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Protests planned across US to condemn Trump administration actions in Iraq, Iran
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/04/iraq-iran-tensions-protests-condemn-u-s-actions-middle-east/2807176001/

    Yea... THAT is the way to win over Americans.. :eyeroll:

    I gotta ask..

    Are Democrats **TRYING** to lose big in Nov of 2020??

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the actual obama quote was:

    "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

    "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

    i thought it wouldn't need to be said, but asking a foreign leader to wait on a diplomatic issue because of a domestic election is not the same as asking a foreign leader to get involved in a domestic election.

    which barack never did. nor bubba, nor bush 41, bush 43, reagan, carter, ford, nor nixon.

    donald not only did so, he did so multiple times, on camera, and made his official acts as president conditional on the foreign leader's compliance. that's not speculation, it's on the record, and listed in the articles.

    JL

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    i thought it wouldn't need to be said, but asking a foreign leader to wait on a diplomatic issue because of a domestic election is not the same as asking a foreign leader to get involved in a domestic election.

    Obama asked for Putin's help so he (Obama) could win his election..

    That's not different than what you accuse President Trump of...

    Obama promised something in return for that help. Flexibility...

    The *ONLY* difference between what President Trump did and what Obama did is that we can PROVE what Obama did beyond ANY doubt whatsoever..

    You can't make the same claim about President Trump..

    donald not only did so, he did so multiple times, on camera, and made his official acts as president conditional on the foreign leader's compliance. that's not speculation, it's on the record, and listed in the articles.

    You claim to have all these FACTS..

    Yet, President Trump is still President..

    So, the ONLY logical conclusion is your "facts" are nothing but spin or mis-interpretation...

    That's the fact you simply cannot argue..

    If Democrats have all these bona fide, sure fire FACTS, then why didn't they have *REAL* charges.... actual CRIMES as Articles of Impeachment..

    Again, the ONLY logical and rational conclusion is Democrats don't have anything beyond bullshit, rumor, innuendo and hearsay...

    No other rational possibility exists..

    If Democrats really had the goods, President Trump would have been history a long time again..

    The *fact* that President Trump is still President proves beyond ANY doubt..

    Democrats have shit... And they know they only have shit..

    Which is why Pelosi is sitting on the goose egg that is the Articles of Impeachment...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

    And, in this context and by YA'ALL's own reasoning, "space" can be designated as a "thing of value"..

    Once again, the FACTS clearly show Obama committing the same "crime" that you accuse President Trump of..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, pretty much, you have two choices...

    Concede that Obama is as guilty as you accuse President Trump of being.

    OR

    President Trump hasn't done anything wrong..

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Obama asked for Putin's help so he (Obama) could win his election..

    no, that is not what obama asked for. based on the transcript, obama was giving a reason why he would not negotiate certain issues at that moment. this is not in any way equivalent to asking for help with a domestic election.

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    paraphrased: now is not a good time to negotiate, because my domestic election has hamstrung my ability to negotiate flexibly. after the election, presuming i am still president, would be a better time. there is absolutely no way to read into the quote what the righty site that picked this quote is attempting to infer.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    this is not in any way equivalent to asking for help with a domestic election.

    " but it's important for him to give me space."

    That's asking for help..

    I know you won't concede that.. But it is so..

    paraphrased: now is not a good time to negotiate, because my domestic election has hamstrung my ability to negotiate flexibly. after the election, presuming i am still president, would be a better time. there is absolutely no way to read into the quote what the righty site that picked this quote is attempting to infer.

    Nothing in there about Putin giving Obama space..

    Ergo, it's NOT an accurate paraphrasing..

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that your "paraphrasing" sounds very similar to Adam Schiff's "paraphrasing" of President Trump's call.

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    context matters. intent matters. "space" is a common idiom meaning to leave someone alone for awhile. it can't be interpreted to mean obama asking a personal political favor any more than it can be interpreted to mean obama wanting putin to cede a portion of the exosphere over russia for use by american satellites. right now you're just playing word games to try to manufacture some sort of equivalence where it doesn't exist.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Iran retaliated..

    Missiles hit Green Zone and Iraq base housing US troops: security sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/missiles-hit-green-zone-and-iraq-base-housing-us-troops-security-sources/ar-BBYC7Kb

    Put some small bomb crates in an empty lot and tore some shingles off an airport barracks housing US Troops..

    Ooooooooooo Scary... :eyeroll:

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    context matters.

    Funny how context DOESN'T matter when ya'all are accusing President Trump of attacking all Mexicans..

    Funny how context DOESN'T matter when Democrats attack President Trump..

    Isn't that funny??

    "space" is a common idiom meaning to leave someone alone for awhile.

    Yes.. And that could be construed as "help"...

    So, Obama was asking Putin for help in leaving him alone for a while so he Obama can win his election..

    right now you're just playing word games to try to manufacture some sort of equivalence where it doesn't exist.

    No, actually it's you who is playing word games trying to defend what is so blatantly obvious..

    Obama utilized quid pro quo with Putin to secure "something of value" to help Obama win the election..

    You can't spin it away.. The **FACTS** are glaring and obvious..

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    I'm no great lover of Obama, but the accusation you're making is ludicrous and entirely disconnected from the facts. Obama did not do what Donald did. Biden did not do what Donald did. and no amount of mental gymnastics on your part will make it so.

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    but heck, why not play the game. let's presuppose that the obvious interpretation is false and instead of asking putin for space because he was too busy or preoccupied with re-election, obama actually asked for space as a way of helping him with re-election. even if against all reason that were the case, putin has to do... what exactly? and putin is being paid... what exactly? and how much is it worth to putin to have obama willing to do it or pay it? and how can any of this be proven?

    answer: even in this unlikeliest of scenarios, putin is being paid nothing to do nothing. in order for something to be a quid pro quo, or be a thing of value, somebody has to at least theoretically be willing to provide something of comparable value in exchange for it. obama asked for nothing to be done and offered to do nothing in return. witnesses have testified and donald has confirmed on live tv that he asked ukraine for an official announcement of investigations into joe and hunter biden, in exchange for which he offered 391 million dollars in stalled military aid and a white house visit. call it what you want, bribery, abuse of power or aggravated jaywalking.

    but... but... but... that's different? of course it's different. one is an offer of nothing for nothing, and couldn't possibly be proven. the other is an offer of something for something, and is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Comments for this article are closed.