Trump-haters making democracy impossible

[usmbguest5318]

POTUS " out-of-the-gate" [sic]

Really?

"Two or more words that collectively act as an adjective should be hyphenated when they appear immediately before the noun they modify. This helps prevent misreading."

Yes, sic. You're not wrong about the hyphen rule. That particular phrase as you used it, however, doesn't need hyphens because contextually there's no different meaning of the phrase with or without them.

• Right Out of the Gate - Phrase Meaning and the Idiom's Origins
• The Mastery Of The Hyphen
  The general rule for compounding is simple enough. Do not use the hyphen unless a difference in meaning is required. A poor-farm is not necessarily a poor farm. A glass house is different from a glass-house, a green house from a green-house. And out in the country, says a humorist, people distinguish between a near neighbor and a near-neighbor.

The reader is well aware that Trump did not literally come out of the gate itself. Also, the reader knows you do not mean that Trump literally came through (out of) a gate. Thus the idiomatic interpretation is the only rational one to apply to the phrase as you used it.

I think it's bad form to correct someone on grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or typos on something as informal as a message board with emoticons of dancing guys and smiley faces flipping each other off. It makes it worse if it is something so petty as whether I should have hyphenated "out-of-the-gate". Plus, you are wrong on top of that. "Out of the gate" with no hyphens is a prepositional phrase. I used it as an adjective: "a full-throttle, out-of-the-gate, naked attempt by the press to bring down a president". Both "full throttle" and "out of the gate" take hyphens there and for the same reasons.

I think it's bad form to correct someone on grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or typos on something as informal as a message board

"[Sic]" is not used to expressly correct someone. It's used to indicate that the writer quoting another's remarks is aware that there is something errant in the way the original author presented the remark and that the error is not the current writer's. I used it because I quoted your writing in my sentence rather than outside of it, such as by using a "quote box."

But for your challenging my use of "[sic]," I'd not have expounded upon my having used [sic], and I certainly wouldn't have bothered to explicitly note what was amiss that led me to use it. Had your point of contention been justified/accurate, I'd have simply "owned" my mistake and moved on, perhaps also offering a clarification of my meaning if such were warranted. (I've done so on more than one occasion. I'm well aware that my USMB posts often contain typos, sometimes a lot of them. Some I discover in time to correct them. Some I do not timely find. Of others, indeed many, I just don't give a damn because nothing I write for USMB has a bearing on how I'm judged by people whose opinion of me I value.)

Plus, you are wrong on top of that. "Out of the gate" with no hyphens is a prepositional phrase. I used it as an adjective: "a full-throttle, out-of-the-gate, naked attempt by the press to bring down a president". Both "full throttle" and "out of the gate" take hyphens there and for the same reasons.

I really didn't think you'd genuinely want to go down that road; apparently, however, you do...

You'd be correct about the hyphenation but for "out of the gate" existing in English as an idiom. Were it not idiomatically understood to and accepted as having the temporal denotation you note you intended, I would agree with you. (In which case I'd also not have used "[sic].") I provided the first reference link in post 298 to illustrate the phrase's acceptance as an idiom unto itself.

BTW, "out of the gate" is strictly speaking an adverbial prepositional phrase, although some might call it an adverbial phrase. The "adverbial" aspect accrues from the phrase's temporal quality, "when" being a piece of meaning adverbs convey. "Out of the gate" identifies when an action took place, which not a function of adjectives. Thus, though you think you used the phrase as an adjective, you did not because adjectives modify nouns and pronouns. Adverbs, thus adverbial phrases, can modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs.



Note:

• Why am I indulging this discussion line? Because I suspect that 300+ posts in, there's little or nothing of note to add to the substance of the thread topic, so I'm willing to engage on this marginally amusing line. If you think there is, however, thematically relevant ground left uncovered with regard to your thread topic, I'll drop this line of chit chat.

 

[cnelsen]

POTUS " out-of-the-gate" [sic]

Really?

"Two or more words that collectively act as an adjective should be hyphenated when they appear immediately before the noun they modify. This helps prevent misreading."

Yes, sic. You're not wrong about the hyphen rule. That particular phrase as you used it, however, doesn't need hyphens because contextually there's no different meaning of the phrase with or without them.

• Right Out of the Gate - Phrase Meaning and the Idiom's Origins
• The Mastery Of The Hyphen
  The general rule for compounding is simple enough. Do not use the hyphen unless a difference in meaning is required. A poor-farm is not necessarily a poor farm. A glass house is different from a glass-house, a green house from a green-house. And out in the country, says a humorist, people distinguish between a near neighbor and a near-neighbor.

The reader is well aware that Trump did not literally come out of the gate itself. Also, the reader knows you do not mean that Trump literally came through (out of) a gate. Thus the idiomatic interpretation is the only rational one to apply to the phrase as you used it.

I think it's bad form to correct someone on grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or typos on something as informal as a message board with emoticons of dancing guys and smiley faces flipping each other off. It makes it worse if it is something so petty as whether I should have hyphenated "out-of-the-gate". Plus, you are wrong on top of that. "Out of the gate" with no hyphens is a prepositional phrase. I used it as an adjective: "a full-throttle, out-of-the-gate, naked attempt by the press to bring down a president". Both "full throttle" and "out of the gate" take hyphens there and for the same reasons.

I think it's bad form to correct someone on grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or typos on something as informal as a message board

"[Sic]" is not used to expressly correct someone. It's used to indicate that the writer quoting another's remarks is aware that there is something errant in the way the original author presented the remark and that the error is not the current writer's. I used it because I quoted your writing in my sentence rather than outside of it, such as by using a "quote box."

But for your challenging my use of "[sic]," I'd not have expounded upon my having used [sic], and I certainly wouldn't have bothered to explicitly note what was amiss that led me to use it. Had your point of contention been justified/accurate, I'd have simply "owned" my mistake and moved on, perhaps also offering a clarification of my meaning if such were warranted. (I've done so on more than one occasion. I'm well aware that my USMB posts often contain typos, sometimes a lot of them. Some I discover in time to correct them. Some I do not timely find. Of others, indeed many, I just don't give a damn because nothing I write for USMB has a bearing on how I'm judged by people whose opinion of me I value.)

Plus, you are wrong on top of that. "Out of the gate" with no hyphens is a prepositional phrase. I used it as an adjective: "a full-throttle, out-of-the-gate, naked attempt by the press to bring down a president". Both "full throttle" and "out of the gate" take hyphens there and for the same reasons.

I really didn't think you'd genuinely want to go down that road; apparently, however, you do...

You'd be correct about the hyphenation but for "out of the gate" existing in English as an idiom. Were it not idiomatically understood to and accepted as having the temporal denotation you note you intended, I would agree with you. (In which case I'd also not have used "[sic].") I provided the first reference link in post 298 to illustrate the phrase's acceptance as an idiom unto itself.

BTW, "out of the gate" is strictly speaking an adverbial prepositional phrase, although some might call it an adverbial phrase. The "adverbial" aspect accrues from the phrase's temporal quality, "when" being a piece of meaning adverbs convey. "Out of the gate" identifies when an action took place, which not a function of adjectives. Thus, though you think you used the phrase as an adjective, you did not because adjectives modify nouns and pronouns. Adverbs, thus adverbial phrases, can modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs.



Note:

• Why am I indulging this discussion line? Because I suspect that 300+ posts in, there's little or nothing of note to add to the substance of the thread topic, so I'm willing to engage on this marginally amusing line. If you think there is, however, thematically relevant ground left uncovered with regard to your thread topic, I'll drop this line of chit chat.

Your error, I believe, comes from your misunderstanding of what was modified. You thought it was referring to Trump. It was not. It was describing the attempt by the press to bring Trump down, i.e., a noun, though, of course, Trump is a noun as well. There was no verb modified and thus no action about which to convey temporal information.

What was the press' attempt like? It was full-throttle, it was out-of-the-gate (meaning immediately on day one), it was naked.

 

[danielpalos]

POTUS " out-of-the-gate" [sic]

Really?

"Two or more words that collectively act as an adjective should be hyphenated when they appear immediately before the noun they modify. This helps prevent misreading."

Yes, sic. You're not wrong about the hyphen rule. That particular phrase as you used it, however, doesn't need hyphens because contextually there's no different meaning of the phrase with or without them.

• Right Out of the Gate - Phrase Meaning and the Idiom's Origins
• The Mastery Of The Hyphen
  The general rule for compounding is simple enough. Do not use the hyphen unless a difference in meaning is required. A poor-farm is not necessarily a poor farm. A glass house is different from a glass-house, a green house from a green-house. And out in the country, says a humorist, people distinguish between a near neighbor and a near-neighbor.

The reader is well aware that Trump did not literally come out of the gate itself. Also, the reader knows you do not mean that Trump literally came through (out of) a gate. Thus the idiomatic interpretation is the only rational one to apply to the phrase as you used it.

I think it's bad form to correct someone on grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or typos on something as informal as a message board with emoticons of dancing guys and smiley faces flipping each other off. It makes it worse if it is something so petty as whether I should have hyphenated "out-of-the-gate". Plus, you are wrong on top of that. "Out of the gate" with no hyphens is a prepositional phrase. I used it as an adjective: "a full-throttle, out-of-the-gate, naked attempt by the press to bring down a president". Both "full throttle" and "out of the gate" take hyphens there and for the same reasons.

I think it's bad form to correct someone on grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or typos on something as informal as a message board

"[Sic]" is not used to expressly correct someone. It's used to indicate that the writer quoting another's remarks is aware that there is something errant in the way the original author presented the remark and that the error is not the current writer's. I used it because I quoted your writing in my sentence rather than outside of it, such as by using a "quote box."

But for your challenging my use of "[sic]," I'd not have expounded upon my having used [sic], and I certainly wouldn't have bothered to explicitly note what was amiss that led me to use it. Had your point of contention been justified/accurate, I'd have simply "owned" my mistake and moved on, perhaps also offering a clarification of my meaning if such were warranted. (I've done so on more than one occasion. I'm well aware that my USMB posts often contain typos, sometimes a lot of them. Some I discover in time to correct them. Some I do not timely find. Of others, indeed many, I just don't give a damn because nothing I write for USMB has a bearing on how I'm judged by people whose opinion of me I value.)

Plus, you are wrong on top of that. "Out of the gate" with no hyphens is a prepositional phrase. I used it as an adjective: "a full-throttle, out-of-the-gate, naked attempt by the press to bring down a president". Both "full throttle" and "out of the gate" take hyphens there and for the same reasons.

I really didn't think you'd genuinely want to go down that road; apparently, however, you do...

You'd be correct about the hyphenation but for "out of the gate" existing in English as an idiom. Were it not idiomatically understood to and accepted as having the temporal denotation you note you intended, I would agree with you. (In which case I'd also not have used "[sic].") I provided the first reference link in post 298 to illustrate the phrase's acceptance as an idiom unto itself.

BTW, "out of the gate" is strictly speaking an adverbial prepositional phrase, although some might call it an adverbial phrase. The "adverbial" aspect accrues from the phrase's temporal quality, "when" being a piece of meaning adverbs convey. "Out of the gate" identifies when an action took place, which not a function of adjectives. Thus, though you think you used the phrase as an adjective, you did not because adjectives modify nouns and pronouns. Adverbs, thus adverbial phrases, can modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs.



Note:

• Why am I indulging this discussion line? Because I suspect that 300+ posts in, there's little or nothing of note to add to the substance of the thread topic, so I'm willing to engage on this marginally amusing line. If you think there is, however, thematically relevant ground left uncovered with regard to your thread topic, I'll drop this line of chit chat.

Your error, I believe, comes from your misunderstanding of what was modified. You thought it was referring to Trump. It was not. It was describing the attempt by the press to bring Trump down, i.e., a noun, though, of course, Trump is a noun as well. There was no verb modified and thus no action about which to convey temporal information.

What was the press' attempt like? It was full-throttle, it was out-of-the-gate (meaning immediately on day one), it was naked.

By reporting the news? How much "fake news" was actually reported and not retracted; where is wikileaks now?

 

[WEATHER53]

Just a pissing and moaning fly swarm EXACTLY as they promised starting about 10pm election night
The greatest irony of all and a solid example of how emotionally unstable liberals are is that they went apeshit over Trumps mild suggestion that maybe he might have 2nd thoughts overv the results of the election and here they are 8 months later continuously frothing 24/7 trying to usurp the results of the election

 

[Valerie]

trump sycophants who project the HATER label, really really HATE those who disapprove of the donald.

you may have noticed these simpletons (like the OP here) REALLY HATE "libtards".

(i could list those hated with a passion and link to the never ending hateful vitriol spewed daily for decades but i won't bother)

trumpswabs reeeally loathe facts and figures ^

anyone who disapproves of having an ignorant buffoon as their leader is a "HATER".

your leadership, mr trump, has empowered and emboldened the worst kind of human hatred while marginalizing those who object AS IF they are the hateful ones. with all due respect, sir... fuck you very very much...and the ignorant horse you rode in on!


https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...donald-trump-is-conning-america-with-his-lies

'Hail Trump!': Video of White Nationalists Cheering the President-Elect

 

[Valerie]

oh, i'm sorry.. did that sound hateful?

 

[Valerie]

TODAY mr trump couldn't even take responsibility for his failed speech to the boy scouts.

he'd tell you the kids loved it! but hey they're kids, taught to respect their president...

in response to the immediate adult uproar, his handlers highlighted one decent sentence, and marginalized his critics as HATERS.

it's a typical childlike deflection defense mechanism, dishonest as it is pathetic for a grown man...

...never mind, for our Chief Diplomat, The President of the United States of America!

Current Scout leaders and former Scouts, as well as parents, used Twitter to voice their criticism of the nature of Trump's speech.

As a Scout leader, my stomach is in knots about what Trump did today. If you haven't watched it yet, don't. It's downright icky.

- Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) July 25, 2017
I'm an Eagle Scout. Trump using the 30,000 BoyScouts as his props tonight was a scene out of Triumph of the Will. Shocking abuse of children

- Michael Moore (@MMFlint) July 25, 2017
This is nauseating. I'm an Eagle Scout and a former scoutmaster. The BSA was never partisan. Dan Zak on Twitter

- Dan Kennedy (@dankennedy_nu) July 24, 2017
And yet, Trump saw fit to turn the largest gathering of Boy Scouts into a political gathering, as if they had come together only to see him.

- Ted Genoways (@TedGenoways) July 25, 2017
My son worked hard to become an Eagle Scout and I am horrified to see the org allow itself to be politicized.

- Deb Bakes (@BakesDeb) July 25, 2017



Past and Present Scouts React to Trump's Jamboree Speech


Read a Transcript of Trump's Boy Scout Jamboree Speech

The 29 most cringe-worthy lines from Donald Trump's hyper-political speech to the Boy Scouts - CNNPolitics.com

 

[WEATHER53]

More nonsense over nothing as to the Boy Scouts
He gave them a buck it up talk and the weeper libs are melting

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The reaction to Hillary losing is borderline psychotic.

 

[Valerie]

The White House today labeled critics of his Boy Scout speech as HATERS.

sadly, i'm sure the children are quite confused...

 

[Valerie]

Dear America,


This is an intervention.


You have a problem.


Donald Trump.


He’s gaslighting you.


It’s a technique abusers use: Through manipulation and outright lies, they so disorient their target that the person (or in this case, the country) is left defenseless.


Trump is a toxic blend of Barnum and bully. If you’re a good mark, he’s your best friend. But if you catch on to the con, then he starts to gaslight. Ask him a question and he’ll lie without batting an eye. Call him a liar and he’ll declare himself “truthful to a fault.” Confront him with contradictory evidence and he’ll shrug and repeat the fib. Maybe he’ll change the subject. But he’ll never change the lie.


Evidence? ...forget all that, because evidence is for losers.


Political journalists have been repeatedly criticized for not confronting Trump on his lies. But of course they have. For political journalists, a politician caught in a lie is chum in the water. But when they confront Trump with his lies, he doesn’t behave like most people. He doesn’t blush or equivocate or argue. He steamrolls. He bullies. He lies some more. And the journalists don’t know what to do. They brought facts to an ego fight, and found them to be worthless weapons.




If it’s hard to wrap your mind around the gaslighting of a nation, just watch the dynamics at work...





The best way to end gaslighting is to sever ties with the abuser. Some Republicans tried to do this, but it seems like the GOP is stuck with Trump, at least for now...


But America, you can still resist. Trump will keep saying he loves you, but that’s the con. Like any abusive relationship, love is the misdirect. Power is the goal...

 

[WEATHER53]

The White House today labeled critics of his Boy Scout speech as HATERS.

sadly, i'm sure the children are quite confused...

No the kids get it. It's you who chooses not to
That was a swell 2017 Tokyo Rose speech you made just above
Really hokey

 

[Valerie]

The reaction to Hillary is borderline psychotic.

yes, and obama too..

 

[Valerie]

More nonsense over nothing as to the Boy Scouts
He gave them a buck it up talk and the weeper libs are melting

he's an embarrassment... decent people hate that.



The 14 Most Inappropriate Moments From Trump’s Speech at the Boy Scout Jamboree

 

[WEATHER53]

Embarrassment is a feeling. Libs have no facts in any of this-just disappointment, jealousy, resentment, revenge and retribution all over their UnAmerican pipe Dream that the election was invalid

 

[Syriusly]

Donald Trump was elected by the people of the United States to a four year term. He is the person we chose to execute the laws of our Republic. We chose him according to the method as provided in our Constitution--the supreme law of the land. You Trump-haters have opposed him from his first day in office--not his policies, but him. You have attacked him like a pack of vicious dogs every minute of every day of his administration--not his policies, but him. In other words, you have spent every day since he took office attacking our democracy itself.

You seek to bring him down. That means you seek to overturn the election. That means you seek to bring down our system of government. .

Wow- that sounds just like how Trump acted towards President Obama.

President Obama was elected by the people of the United for 2 four year terms.

Trump spent 5 years trying to make Americans think that President Obama was not our legally elected President.

Where was your outrage then?

 

[WEATHER53]

The most inappropriate moments the flakes are melting over were simply forceful manly statements made to young men who will hopefully get it and grow into strong men and strong men are NOT Appealing to libbies

 

[Syriusly]

Trump should have federal agents raid the Washington Post on Monday morning and have every person there arrested on charges of treason. He should keep them in jail until the end of his term.

Not a surprise that a Trump supporter also despises the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Making Democracy impossible? The GOP controls everything. The federal government, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures, most governorships..... but everything is the Democrat's fault? LOL

But remember- people are being so unfair to President Snowflake......"he continued. "It's extremely unfair — and that's a mild word — to the president."

We have never had such a whiny President in our history. Hell have we ever had a President who refers to himself in the third person?

 

[Valerie]

Embarrassment is a feeling. Libs have no facts in any of this-just disappointment, jealousy, resentment, revenge and retribution all over their UnAmerican pipe Dream that the election was invalid

if you say so, hater... how did you FEEL about obama for 8 years...?

and how did you FEEL at the thought of ms Hillary as your president??