But it is! Everyone knows it’s “wimdee.”
I hate you, and if I get that song in my head, I will… actually, there’s nothing I can really do to get back at you for that.
You can take comfort in the fact that you’re not alone in making the Association…
I pronounce it as WOOOOOOM’D!, which is also onomatopoetic.
From Wikipedia
It’s a brave language descriptivist who goes up against the biggest dictionaries.
It’s held up before, as the rumor mill says that Trump has sued numerous former employees. I remember reading that every volunteer on the campaign had to sign a NDA. Here’s one documented instance of a former staffer being sued: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/donald-trump-sam-nunberg/index.html
It’s pretty typical Trump tactics to threaten to sue into bankruptcy anyone who says mean things about him, so it will be interesting to see what happens when it’s a deeply-pocketed target like Bannon.
I don’t think Wikipedia is being very precise about what dictionaries say. Some drop the pronounced as a word requirement. Some don’t. For example:
I find language pedanticism ridiculous and childish. I thought that would likely be obvious from my comment, but alas.
ETA: Its also amusing that the Wikipedia article says “An acronym is a word or name formed as an abbreviation from the initial components in a phrase or a word, usually individual letters (as in NATO or laser) and sometimes syllables (as in Benelux).”
The distinction BobLibDem was making is that George W. Bush was a typical President; he made decisions that resulted in people dying, but EVERY President makes such decisions. LBJ killed millions, including tens of thousands of his own citizens, by choosing to escalate the war in Vietnam. Truman killed people. Clinton killed people. FDR did, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Bush 1.0, Reagan, Obama, Wilson, Lincoln, George Washington. Whether the pros outweigh the cons - LBJ’s Civil Rights work versus Vietnam, Bush’s Iraq War fiasco versus PEPFAR - is a matter we can debate. But what you cannot seriously debate is that all those men tried to make the USA a better place. Some succedeed, some failed, but that’s what they were all trying to do.
Trump is not trying to do anything of the sort. He is the first President who doesn’t care to improve the country.
Too late to edit: I said I was not a descriptivist, which I am. Duh. I R dum.
I think an argument can be made that not caring is better than actively lying in order to kill and torture people.
People were guessing from the day one that trump doesn’t try or expect to win. But there wasn’t guessing that he actually tries to lose.
So if he did try to lose it tells pretty much all about his competence level. Trump has tried so many things and failed time after time and now when he actually tries to lose he FAILS even that. I mean how difficult it is to lose presidential election in The US. I could do that, heck I’m not even eligible.
SAD doesn’t even start to describe this.
What the Ever Loving Fuck?
Lawmakers briefed by Yale psychiatrist on Trump’s mental health: report
So many questions.
Like…who the fuck is Bandy Lee? Why is he\she talking with lawmakers. Has this person examined the President? I doubt it. And so, why is this person’s opinion anything other than a useless opinion. Why the fuck is this news??? The President is crazy?? Really?? Like we didn’t know that already???
While it’s funny to point out that he fails at losing, I think what this really points to is his fans were not swayed by him deliberately making a mockery of them. Which points to them not caring what he will do, but caring only about who hates him. If you just want the other people to be hurt, you don’t care if you look like a jerk, a fool, or a monster.
I’m liking a New Yorker article I just read, which describes, sums up and quotes bits from Wolff’s book.
And here’s a quote from the end of the article:
‘Wolff recounts near the end of the book that, five months after Comey’s firing, Bannon was predicting the collapse of Trump’s Presidency. Speaking in Breitbart’s headquarters, which Bannon refers to as the Breitbart Embassy, Bannon told people there was a 33.3-per-cent-chance that the Mueller investigation would lead to Trump’s impeachment, a 33.3 per-cent-chance that Trump would resign, “perhaps in the wake of a threat by the cabinet to act on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment,” and a 33.3-per-cent chance that he would “limp to the end of his term. In any event, there would certainly not be a second term, or even an attempt at one. ‘He’s not going to make it,’ said Bannon at the Breitbart Embassy. ‘He’s lost his stuff.’ ”’
It’s not pronounced “wimmed”?
Wmd would be a perfectly cromulent word in Welsh.
Its one thing for a person to sue employees - its another thing for the President to try and squash free speech.
Here are my questions:
Is it uncommon for lawmakers to consult experts when considering legislative action? Is a professor of psychiatry at Yale considered a reliable expert in mental health issues? Is it proper for such experts in mental health make informed judgments for the purpose of assessing the stability or traits of an individual outside of making a diagnosis for treatment? Is there enough information for an expert to make a reasonable judgment about Trump’s mental stability? If we all know that the President is crazy, why should it come as a surprise that legislators are trying to get a better idea of what kind of crazy to the extent that it warrants action? If they’re going to make a move against the President based on mental instability, I would think they should at the very least be informed of mental health issues. Is it even possible to force the President to be evaluated by a mental health professional? If not, how else would concerned parties go about assessing the President’s mental stability?
There ***are ***a lot of questions.
It’s actually the exact same size as Kim Jong-un’s button. It just looks bigger because his hands are so small.
I work for a health policy non-profit. We’re asked to weigh in on legislation as it’s being imagined and drafted all the time.