Can we please, please use the correct words in describing Trump and the Mueller investigation?

[louis c]

Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2018, 08:07 PM - Edit history (1)

(1). Collusion: Collusion is a catch all umbrella term for a whole host of crimes and non-crimes. What we're dealing with here are crimes, like conspiracy, obstruction of justice, illegal political contributions, money laundering, and may I say, treason.

(2). Meddling: This one really pisses me off. Where the fuck did this word come from in describing what happened to this country in 2016? Meddling is what my aunt does when she interferes into who her 22 year old daughter should date, or my neighbor telling my wife what time I came home while she was working. The fucking Russians attacked this country, broke into computers of a political party and disseminated that information to change election results. That's not fucking meddling, it's an act of fucking war.

(3) Loyalty: Loyalty, as in "Trump really values loyalty". Fucking Donald Trump is loyal to no one. Loyalty is a two way street, and Trump does not ever show anyone loyalty. What Trump values is fealty. As a king would require, or a dictator, or a slave owner.

Please, please, can we please use the correct English language when describing what's happening in this country.

[dhol82]

1. Describing what's happening in this country?

Getting fucked?
That seems appropriate.

[Nishna]

2. it's Mueller, not Mueler

Correct spelling of the name is Mueller.

[marble falls]

3. Joined up just to correct some spelling, eh?

[Pluvious]

15. Welcome to posting on DU Nishna !!

I forgot what finally compelled me to delurk and register...
But I've never looked back !

Peace

[marble falls]

19. And yet you never felt compelled to correct spelling.

[gopiscrap]

22. welcome to DU

[dameatball]

4. #2 I agree with. The others...eh...semantics....I don't get "pissed off" because some other DU'er

uses a term that doesn't match my particular scope of permissiveness.

I like DU. A wealth of information here. I find that reading an entire post and trying to get the gist of it is much more informative than keying on certain words or phrases and being dismissive of the statement or sentiment implied. You would be better served by addressing individual posters than by making a blanket statement.

[louis c]

5. Collusion and Meddling are terms that make the situation look trivial

So the people who pay only passing attention to our problems think "it's no big deal". Collusion is not a crime and meddling is what my mother-in-law does. "Trump values loyalty" puts him in a positive light, when in fact it's fealty that he requires. That's a big difference.

[dameatball]

7. We are not far off. But to dismiss DU'ers because of a use of jargon is short sighted. Give people a

chance. And, yes, I do get your point. I personally just like to hear what people have to say, read between the lines, and decide for myself.
Honestly, I doubt that many readers on DU think any of this is "no big deal." Not that I have seen.

Anyway, we argue amongst ourselves enough, so no disrespect intended. Some other weird bullshit will happen tomorrow.

[louis c]

12. I wasn't even refering to DUers

I hear this all the time on CNN and MSNBC. As a matter of fact, it was CNN that just referred to Trump as valuing "loyalty" that put me on this key board.

I can't even remember reading any of those terms on this site.

None of those terms began here, but we need to push back on them every chance we get.

[dameatball]

13. Good. Thanks for the interpretation. The OP makes more sense now.

[Flaleftist]

6. I like the words conspiracy and treason. nt

[Pluvious]

16. Also complicit and subversive !! nt.

[CanonRay]

8. Thank you

[Amaryllis]

9. You forgot interference, another euphemism. Let's call it what it is: Attack. Theft. Stolen election

[heaven05]

10. yep

[NBachers]

11. I agree - it's like Dump, Russia, & the repubes are being misidentified as mischievous pranksters.

[BigmanPigman]

14. Jill Wine Banks had a similar idea today.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10967106

[calimary]

17. Like this, and love her! And I have one in particular that drives me crazy:

The predominance of the word “fascinating.”

This burns me up! I’m sick of hearing on-air pundits describing how trump’s lies bring out the worst in people, or how his fans stay glued to him even if his actions hurt them, or how chaos is spreading like a cancer through what’s supposed to be our professional grown-up government, or how much or how badly the have-nots are getting screwed by his policies, or how he keeps getting away with stuff, or how the cheating and dishonest engineering of fraud and theft and corruption run unchecked or...

And the adjective they too often fall back on is “fascinating.”

“Fascinating”!?!?!?!!!!?!??

For the Love of God, NOT ONE BIT of any of that is “fascinating”!!!

Try “horrifying”.

Try “criminal” or “near-criminal.”

Try “sad” or “depressing” or “distressing” or “disturbing” or “discouraging”.

Try “shocking” or “an outrage” or “grotesque” or “reprehensible” or “shameful” or “detestable.”

Try “sinful” or “downright unAmerican” or “tragic” or “abominable”.

Or, as we are starting to see - and I suspect, will see with growing frequency - “treasonous”.

But it sure as hell ISN’T “fascinating” nor is it “fascinating to watch”.

What’s going on now is anything BUT “fascinating”. Any more than warehousing small children in cages after snatching them out of their parent’s arms is “fascinating”. Any more than unleashing the polluters after showering the biggest corporate offenders with tax cuts and rolled-back protective regulations so our air and water are dirtier, and global warming is accelerating, is “fascinating”. Any more than comforting the already comfortable at the expense of the poor, sick, homeless, and needy is “fascinating”. Any more than deliberately destroying our democracy and shredding our civil rights is “fascinating”.

[BigmanPigman]

18. I think they need to get an old fashioned thesaurus

and dictionary. Fascinating should be reserved for new discoveries.
**********************************************************************
Fascinating:
adjective
extremely interesting.
"fascinating facts"
synonyms: interesting, captivating, engrossing, absorbing, enchanting, enthralling, spellbinding, riveting, engaging, compelling, compulsive, gripping, thrilling;...

[calimary]

20. Uh-HUH!!! Exactly.

“Fascinating” implies something good. At its most basic! Along the lines of all those adjectives you’ve listed in your post here.

I just finally throw up my hands and add it to my list of things I’d do as president of MSNBC. (Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, like that’ll ever happen...) Along with moving Andrea Mitchell back on the road covering State Department and international affairs and giving her daily timeslot to Joy Reid; getting rid of the smug obnoxious Hugh Hewitt - who has no business having a show on MSNBC in the first place; putting John Fugelsang on for fun ‘n’ games ‘n’ satire for two hours on Friday nights after Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams (and then rerun it - like they do with “Morning Joe”; and one more adjustment that corrects something that DRIVES ME FREAKIN’ CRAZY!!!!

New rule: every time a talking head comes on, their name comes up on the chyron at the bottom of the screen. For some inexplicable reason, they keep those same headlines on underneath, and MAYBE after the guest has been talking for 10-15 seconds, the control room finally gets around to bringing up the identifier for two or maybe three seconds. And then, the name’s gone. And even if they come back to that guest for a second comment, the same headlines me persists. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve literally shouted at my TV - “WHO is this person??? Where’s their NAME? Who is this who’s speaking? I didn’t catch it the first time! Gimme a NAME, dammit!” You more often get a single quick pass at the identifier and then that’s pretty much it. Frustrating as all-get-out when you’re trying to pay serious attention or take notes!

[BigmanPigman]

21. Not showing the names of the guests REALLY pisses me off too!

CNN and MSNBC both do it a lot.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Excellent post, words do matter.

Thanks for the thread, louis c.