@Færd Have you seen the following question? Zero article before the word “part” - what is the particular reason for this?

@Mitch That's right. But if it's only one part then I presume that it's normally used uncountably. Compare: She was away for a/- part of the day, I drank a/- part of the water and threw the rest away.

@suməlic Yeah. I guess if one learns the idiomatic phrases and fixed uses (eg, part of me agrees, take part in sth, etc) then one can apply this idea more safely.

@suməlic Thanks. The useful part for me is where Brian says the uncountable one tends to suggest more importance.

That can be seen more vividly when talking about a team. Compare: Please don't leave us! You're a/- part of this team.

@tchrist: eldeforma.com/2016/11/10/…

Must be some Spanish-language version of The Onion ...

Jeje I thought it was another petition imploring the Electoral College to finally do their fucking job that they were created for and not elect a disaster.

While it may be too much to hope 10% of the Republican Electors will change their vote to Hillary, it seems pretty reasonable to hope to get those same electors to vote for some other Republican in order to deny all candidates the requisite 270 and so throw it into the Republican House to do their duty.

This one: change.org/p/…

The petition isn't very convincing by itself, but the sentiment is correct in the Holy Framers’ intentions, which should sit well with Strict Constructionists.

> As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

> The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

People are bitching about the Electoral College being a major fuck-up. That remains to be seen. If they do the job that the federalists designed them to do, then they are not. If they are rubber-stamping toadies who cannot rise even to the kneecaps of those who designed the very Constitution they purport to follow, then they should be swept from this world into the next.

The quotes are from factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college

References to the embedded quotes available there as well, but I'm sure you know where to get those.

I’d far rather have Clinton, but I’d take anyone even a Republican House selected over Trump.

This wouldn't even count as a Constitutional crisis. It’s what the Constitution was designed to make possible.

> James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole.

> Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Unlike plebiscites where 1+50% of the votes cast by all citizens determines the outcome, we are deliberately not a democracy in electing our President. We are a republic.

Democracy can be an evil thing. If 51% can vote that blacks with any speeding tickets in their history cannot vote, then democracy is evil. If Athens votes to execute Socrates via majority vote, it is evil. And if democracy set it up so that one voter past an even fifty-percent can vote to execute all citizens upon their retirement to save the state pay-out money, it is evil.

So a republic promises the cure for the evils of democracy, Mr Madison? That remains to be demonstrated.

It's not like the crazy first-past-the-post policy is in our Constitution. It's not, for otherwise Maine and Nebraska could not exist, since they do not apportion their electors that way.

@JasperLoy Which one is the biggest rectangle? >_>

@Mitch That's the thing. I was asked by a Spanish friend for a translation of the word pijo that isn't posh because her teacher, apparently, believes that posh is some sort of dirty neologism (it isn't, it's been around since 1914). I picked up posh while living in England and that is a very close translation of the Spanish pijo and I can't for the life of me think of any other that would fit.

If I were to avoid posh, I'd use different words in different contexts: fancy, snobbish, stuck up etc.

> In the main varieties of English from outside North America, the past participle of get in all its senses is usually got. Gotten appears occasionally, and it is standard in a few set phrases such as ill-gotten gains, but the shorter form prevails by a large margin.

grammarist.com/usage/got-gotten

Reopen request. I think this question on "large" for negative has the bones of an interesting question, but was closed for lack of research. I've added some research and nominated for re-opening. Thanks anyone who agrees :)

@Jdoh It's ill-gotten in BrE. It even has a "BrE" dictionary entry of its own: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ill-gotten

The OED entry for it dates from 1899, and references gotten as pp of get.

I believe that it's a product of the divergence of emigration to America: some aspects of c17 English have been preserved in AmE but changed in BrE (and vice-versa of course).

Gotten is one such. That pp has changed in BrE, but is preserved in phrases like ill-gotten.

It might make an interesting question, if it's not already been asked.

18 questions returned from search

@terdon I think the same problem clings to posh as to chic.

Chic is different. It has good connotations while posh is mostly derogatory.

It implies one of two things, either of which is traditionally considered vulgar, because you're not supposed to talk about class in such a way.

Chic is not comme il faut!

At least not in Dutch...

Chic is usually (always?) good in English.

Not traditionally...

Perhaps not, but that's the usage I'm familiar with.

Except when used negatively or ironically.

As in the expression, c'est pas très chic.

And I just remembered highfalutin, that might be a good fit for the type of thing I'm looking for.

@Cerberus Different language :P

Ah!

Hah!

It's all French!

You can also say dat is niet chich in Dutch.

Dit pas des conneries.

My French is rusty, but...

How do you spell exclamations like ah and oh in Greek? Is it still like ὦ and ἆ?

I believe o also used to be used in English?

Probably more often ah, even though a makes more sense.

@Cerberus Oh: Ωχ!; Ah: Α!

Although the English oh! of surprise, is more commonly A!. The Ωχ! is more an exclamation of dismay than surprise.

With a χ, truly!

That sounds alarmingly close to oχi!

I suppose in Ancient Greek ὦ is used in addressing people, not exclamations of surprise.

As in, o Zeus, what have you done?

Yeah, that one isn't used in modern Greek. Just as it isn't used in modern English.

it will be understood, but is archaic. Kinda like 'Hail oh Cerberus' would be in English.

Right.

I'm not sure about Ancient Greek.

It isn't always used, but I don't know its exact connotation.

Of course, the end of the world as we know it might actually be a good thing.

Less corruption and cheating, for example.

Somehow, I doubt that's the direction we're gonna be going in.

@AndrewLeach No food shortages

@Cerberus Chic is usually positive in AmE. "That dress is very chic'

Hm... 'posh' is also usually positive in AmE, no associations with the deplorable aristocracy... or Victoria Beckham.

I'm afraid that's as non-U as it gets.

@RegDwigнt European journalists get carried away so easily.

@Færd Oh. Right. But you can also say 'She was away for parts of the day'. Which makes me think that 'away for part of the day is not uncountable'.

Probably because they spend so much time copying web articles from American sources.

@Cerberus just like the rioters in Portland

What happens there affects us less.

@Cerberus ooh.. burn.

@Mitch I don't know them.

@Mitch I know my newspaper does it.

It's like, I see it on some website, BAM the next day it will be on my newspaper's website.

@Cerberus the latest news was that there were some anti-Trump window smashers in Portland, Oregon.

And it's supposedly the country's best newspaper.

@Mitch Hmm that doesn't sound like a good idea.

@Cerberus That's a general Internet phenomenon, cut and paste is so easy. so even journalists do it.

@Cerberus I can't make a case for it.

Yes, and some journalists in northern Europe love to copy from American websites, forgetting that it's two different worlds.

They do so because English is easy to read.

@Mitch Then perhaps the rioters should drop it.

Well, there's more similar between NA and Europe than compared to SA, Africa, ME, ...

But politically... wait...the AfD is co-inspiring the American bastards.

@Cerberus When China slowly eats the world, we'll all be speaking Mandarin.

Which reminds me of my political platform: "Chinese in PinYin will save your baby! Change to PinYin today for a better tomorrow"

@Cerberus Be careful. That thing could break your toe.

haha but seriously, the expectation was entirely one way for months and then the outcome at the last minute was the other, so it is a terribly wrenching tragic movie plot (for some people).

Also, people are idiots

@JasperLoy Clever.

@Mitch Still, there are a ton of things that have or should have nothing to do with us. Gossip about politicians. Etc.

@JasperLoy The chocolate from Antarctica isn't bad. It can't be worse than Hershey's. It's like someone accidentally poured electrical cleaning fluid into the vats.

@Mitch Lovely. Where do I sign up and give away my babies?

@Cerberus ? Gossip about American politicians in European media?

@Mitch Yes, of course. But, and don't take this the wrong way, it will main affect you and not us.

@Cerberus Hm...maybe that accounts for the strange taste of Hershey's...

@JasperLoy Cool.

Or cold.

@Mitch Yes.

@Cerberus Hopefully the effects will remain local. But yesterday stock markets around the world dropped a lot (not as much as I had expected). I haven't heard if they've rebounded yet.

I see a small drop this week.

@JasperLoy That's an interesting philosophical problem. Don't blame me, I wouldn't use it. But then by arbitrary connection, you probably should blame me probabilistically the amount that is blamable for the group. Or something like that.

Hmm that is a rather small drop.

And look at the DAX.

American big business has managed to retain control of the presidency with yet another man, so what's new?

@Cerberus You forgot white, but I doubt most of the working class stiffies who elected him realize this.

@Cerberus The Dow Jones dropped precipitously the day after, but then rose quickly to gain back losses and more

so things are looking better financially (for the moment)

@tchrist White what?

@Mitch Indeed, indeed.

@Cerberus Man. White man. Old white man. Grumpy old white man.

Only the first applies to the man the orange is replacing.

Well, the previous one wasn't white.

Exactly.

And, indeed, the next one will be orange.

So this is a transition from the Other back to grumpy old white men again.

So I'm not sure I'd use the word "black".

Only his heart is black.

They all mainly represent big business, don't they?

Unclear. If Obama is an oligarch, how come they hate him so much?

Who are "they"?

His putative fellow oligarchs.

The big companies that supported the other party will hate him, his own big companies will love him.

No pauper to the presidency comes.

Still fewer leave it.

Exactly.

But I think the general public doesn't understand the root of the "Washington insider" problem.

Of course it's not unique to Washington.

But there are unique factors that make it worse there.

Unique? Abnormal, perhaps even unusual.

If that.

Nothing like that exists here.

Most parties get most of their funds from subsidies and fixed party-member contributions.

Politicians are not rich.

For those of us not quite close to your side of the world, what is the ''Washington insider'' problem?

Which side is that?

Wester than where I live

There is an elite of very rich people who raise funds (like 1 billion) from big companies every four years in order to campaign and thereby win the elections in Washington.

I liver barely Wester than you do!

Still wester!

I believe most people in parliament are also very rich in Washington, and they spend most of their days raising funds from big companies or billionaires.

Anyone outside Iran knows in average more than an average Iranian about the world out there, averagely.

That's a lot of averages.

Of course, Trump didn't need to raise funds from other people's big companies, so he didn't need to curry favour with big business and could appeal direct to the population.

@M.A.R. I think analogous to the bazaari problem, that they have too much influence on politics.

@AndrewLeach But he is big business, which is no better.

And he did raise huge amounts of money—just much less than Clinton did.

@Mitch What the heck is that? O.o

@Cerberus There will always be people who donate. I don't think my statement is wrong.

@AndrewLeach That's almost half a billion dollars raised for Trump.

@Cerberus "The mean of the mean is the mean". The Central Limit Theorem for the win!

There is no other path to gain or remain in power within the hallowed Houses of Congress than by constant fundraising, for whosoever exempts himself from this process is crushed by all opponents who drink from the trough of plenty. Television commercials are expensive, doncha know.

And on top of that come what Trumps' super PACs raised.

@tchrist Yes, and it is a bloody shame that the legions of Washington-hating voters don't realise that this is a very important factors behind the phaenomenon that they are angry about.

But it is a vicious circle: the rich spend so much money in campaigns to mislead the uneducated...

@Cerberus Education is hardly his supporters’ strongest suit.

Alas.

jinx

But perhaps next time a Sanders will win.

@Cerberus That table makes no distinction between what was raised through appeal, request, begging and fund-raisers, and what was freely given because the donor agreed with the message.

Nor what came out of a personal fortune.

TV advertising is so last century. Google/Twitter/FB is where the most eyes hit.

Another important factor, I believe, is the winner-take-all system: it causes bipartisanship and polarisation, and no access to power whatsoever for new parties, which is another cause of the problem.

@AndrewLeach So?

@Cerberus It's not part of the Constitution.

@AndrewLeach I don't believe so: "raised" shouldn't apply to personal fortune. Besides, I have read many times that Trump did not invest much money of his own.

@M.A.R. Nice avatar. You should embed an icosahedron in there.

@tchrist What isn't?

also a cube and tetrahedron. and octahedron.

@Cerberus First past the post.

shit just embed everything.

They tried to change the winner-take-all system in England, but the big, old parties campaigned strongly against it (of course), and the people voted against changing it.

@Cerberus but this is for a single person. proportional is (I agree) the right method for a group of representatives. But for a single person it sorta has to be categorical threshold.

@Cerberus There's a difference between going out to someone and saying "I believe this: support me" and someone hearing what you believe and donating to the cause without being asked. The table doesn't make that distinction.

And so the Greens got like a million votes and two seats, UKIP many millions of votes and one or zero seats.

Thank God.

hello

hola

hello!

Nice to meet you

Dobry dyen!

@Cerberus The people voted against what was offered as an alternative.

Dia duit!

I want to ask questions. OK?

Ask away!

@Mitch Oh, that is true: but the bipartisan houses reinforce the party structure, which also influences presidential elections. And no presidential candidate who didn't go through the party wrangler could hope to win.

<insert-badass-greeting-here-in-a-language-you've-never-heard-of>

@M.A.R. You have to instantiate that.

@AndrewLeach Either way, he received tons of money from big companies and billionaires, though less than Clinton did.

waiting...

@Mitch Donchuworry, the badassness covers it

@user4215 Don't ask to ask. Just ask.

@user4215 Just interrupt.

@AndrewLeach Which would have made a big difference in making the two big parties less powerful.

@M.A.R. We require substantive support for badassery here

Of course every system has its advantages and disadvantages.

When you look at anthologies of all his writings... does this mean, there are several anthologies that contain all his writings or that each anthology contains some of his writings and if you read these anthologies you will eventaully read all of his writings?

@Mitch I'm here to break the norms and become POTUS

"We don't know what we want, but we know it isn't this."

But I think many angry groups don't have a good grasp of how the systems work.

What is the necessity of a winner-takes-all system anyway?

What does it prevent?

It only works when you have a rather loose federation of allied countries.

And you want an executive that can act quickly and decisively.

@user4215 Could mean either. More likely to mean each anthology contains part of the total. Because there isn't usually more than one absolutely complete collection.

@M.A.R. We import no impotably impotent potentates.

face tattoos. diving into water with a knife between your teeth...the wrong way. Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony.

I see. So this wording is grammatically correct to mean the latter?

@M.A.R. It's just the simplest obvious voting mechanism.

andrew

everyone knows what it means

@Mitch What would've changed if there was no winner-takes-all?

If votes were counted as they were cast?

@M.A.R. I read that as 'break the arms'

@M.A.R. Maine.

Or I'm prolly misunderstanding something

@M.A.R. ??

@M.A.R. It depends on which elections you're talking about: presidential or parliamentary.

oh confusing.

@M.A.R. Then the electors would be apportioned by vote.

popular vote is winner take all by the one entire country too

@Mitch Well, that was what would've happened to MacMahon if Trump didn't stand on ceremony.

@user4215 Yes. (If you click on the arrow at the end of a post here -- hover over it to see it -- you can link a chat line to a preceding one and ping its author)

The reasons behind why we do not vote for the president here have been forgotten. Alas, but for that oblivion the republic might yet be saved.

But the next elections, Trump might have got 51%. The difference is slight.

I think the problem lies deeper.

With the two-party system.

@AndrewLeach I see. Just like so?

The fact that the American president has so much power is a factor here, but it can also be an advantage. It's a trade-off.

@M.A.R. In the US electoral college system, it is not ostensibly preventing anything. It is simply a simplification device. The second level voting of the (elected) electors was ostensibly to be a buffer against stupid people voting the 'wrong way' (the electors supposedly are not bound to what people voted them for), except that has become the norm nowadays (except Nebraska and Maine). People would riot if the electors changed their vote.

@Mitch So what?

@M.A.R. How do you feel about the winner-take-all system in Persia?

I know you have it for your parliamentary elections.

@Cerberus For a single leader? That still doesn't follow.

Let them riot. The electors' obligation is to the Constitution alone and nothing else.

@Cerberus That it's stupid

And possibly also for your Guardian Council (or was it the other one).

@M.A.R. Why?

@Mitch Why not?

@tchrist What 'so what'? I'm trying to explain to @M.A.R.

Our system is really just a copy of what was observed in Europe/the US some time ago by someone.

@Mitch So let them riot.

@M.A.R. Ah, OK.

I have a large wall of text about this if you would but scroll up far enough.

It has no originality.

And no creativity.

So it's not that worth it to talk about its fallacies

@M.A.R. The origin lies in a time when the constituencies/districts/states were much more different from each other than they are now, and more independent (for states).

@Cerberus In fact a two party system is more understandable for a single leader. majority is guaranteed. With more 'parties', majority is not guaranteed and lots of possibility for spoilers.

@user4215 Yes :-) Of course, it would work better if I didn't have the sound turned off here!

@AndrewLeach You are at work or something?

@Cerberus to your last sentence, that is true of multiparty system too. to your first sentence, there may be a problem, but I also see the same problem with multiparty system.

@M.A.R. Suppose your country allied with a few other countries, and you decided to come up with a Leader of the Alliance, who would decide on some things and lead your combined armies during a war, negotiate with other countries, etc. How would you want this leader to be appointed/elected?

@Cerberus TBH I don't know.

@user4215 Something. I still had headphones plugged in.

@user4215 I have the sound off because I find it offensive to my senses and concentration alike.

Sometimes I feel everyone is an idiot.

Sometimes I lose hope. Sometimes I don't.

@Cerberus When the delegates see how the galactic council deals with it...they'll be in for a surprise.

@M.A.R. And who doesn't?

@tchrist I see.

@M.A.R. Suppose your government said, we will vote about the candidates (for the leadership of the aliance) in our national parliament, and then our parliament will parlay its decision to the alliance. The other allied countries will do the same thing. Then we look at what each country decided, and we appoint whichever person got the most parliaments behind him as the leader. Would that sound like a fair / obvious system?

It would, but we have so many foreign and national enemies they would pick holes in it anyway.

@Mitch I don't understand: "understandable"? "Majority guaranteed"? "Spoilers"?

@Mitch That is true, but, if there are many more parties, it won't all be so extremely polarised. And newer parties may select candidates less on how well they fit into century-old power structures.

I like the system here:

@Mitch But, you are right: that won't solve the problem entirely. Electing a single person with so much power has this issue intrinsically. As I said, there are also advantages to having such a powerful leader; but this is one disadvantage.

"Such power"? Almost nothing cannot be countermanded or overturned.

I know of only one.

True, but it is still a ton more than in parliamentary systems.

Even the French president has less power than yours, I believe.

The large majority of presidents in the West and neighbouring regions have very little power, almost ceremonial. Only a few have real power, but even that power is in most cases less than your president has.

I don't know why every one is worried about the US election, when there are issues that are destroying the planet now and addressable by other means.

Cf. France, Turkey, Germany, Finland, Italy, Russia...

Namely the Nutella embargo on Italian ports.

(Of course many (semi-)Western countries are monarchies, and in none of them does the monarch wield much power.)

@Mitch I agree: it is a bit of an overreaction.

A media circus.

The media thrive on scandal and sensation.

People are wasting away across the world, deprived of NUtella and the Russian aircraft carriers are keeping the Italian ports closed. THe tasteless (in so many ways) Russians are to blame.

The Russian carriers?

And there is collusion with the Western news media, you won't here anything about it.

@Cerberus aircraft carriers.

A Russian carrier's destroyers chased off a Dutch submarine in the Mediterranean the other day.

also battleships.

@Mitch I know that, but what did they do?

You need both for a good embargo these days. battle ships and mining to keep cargo ships from moving; air cover to protect the battleships. basic military strategy.

What's all this about? Have I missed some news story?

I thought it was Marmite we were blockading.

Of course it's an overreaction. IMO Trump will be a reasonable POTUS, as twisted as that ''reasonable'' means

Global warming does a better job at killing big cities eventually.

@Cerberus They entered the mediterranean from naval bases in Sebastopol and from the other end. The Russians control the mediterranean. No one knows about it since the suer tourist season has ended

@Cerberus Don't make me laugh. No one in their right mind likes marmite.

@M.A.R. I have written your name in the Book of Records that you may be someday judged by your own words.

@M.A.R. big waterfront cities.

that are big Nutella importers. stop those ports and the countries will whither away

@M.A.R. Reasonable? That I do not think.

@Cerberus Haven't they laid up stores of that stuff in the marmoreal halls of Academe?

Well, more reasonable than Bush.

@tchrist What, I'm not orange

@tchrist Yeah, that's what they use to caulk the windows.

@Mitch Umm... I don't know what this is about, but the Russians have always been present in the Mediterranean, and I don't believe anything of significance has happened recently, except that they sent over a few more ships to Syria?

@M.A.R. remains to be seen. depends on advisor staff. Bush's were known to be evil. Trump's are expected to be dumb.

@Mitch Did you read the news about Marmite soon after Brexit? How it was going to be more expensive because the pound had dropped?

@M.A.R. Haven't you been paying attention to the thousand outrages of doom?

@Mitch And orange

@tchrist Alas, no. It is made by a Dutch company, Unilever.

@tchrist Dooooooooooooom . . . meh

@Cerberus Collusion with the media has prevented you from seeing what is happening.

Which makes like half of the world's unwholesome brands.

@Cerberus Oh. So some news did slip out into the main stream. Check the Nutella futures. You'll see then.

@M.A.R. I doubt that; but at leas I think there will be fewer invasions in foreign countries, if that's what you mean?

@Cerberus Yes. There's a lot of resources being wasted on wars.

@M.A.R. haha. the Cheeto-industrial complex

@Mitch It must have, indeed.

@M.A.R. True. Although I think any current president would have invaded much less than Bush did.

Another webinar ended. It's been wonderful knowing you all, I wish you well. See you all in @JasperLoy 's dreams!

@Mitch No need to put a space and make it wrong punctuation.

@Mitch's pings Mitch as much as Mitch 's does.

@Mitch Adeus!

@M.A.R. But otherwise the ping might not work?

@Cerberus You mean if the ping and the apostrophe were separated by a space?

Only SO though