politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Choose one
Implicitly explied.
He clearly implied. Leaving no room for confusion or doubt that he implied what he implied.
The implication was explicit. He’s considering running. No one thinks he was implying he would run for a spot on Sesame Street, or as Chief of Staff, or any other position.
You don’t think that works well enough, especially in the context of Jon’s relationship with the subject in the past?
You keep using these words... I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
If you must interpret the meaning of his words based on additional context, then he was implying.
If there is no need for interpretation, then he was being explicit.
His relationship to the subject in the past has been an utter lack of interest in running for any kind of office, and has never even attempted it on a local level or expressed a desire to.
How about we all get the dick of celebrityhood in general out of our collective mouths and just let the man tell us what he has planned if he has something planned.
Whoa, I was just discussing why I would go easy on the poor word choices here. Calm down.
No! Schrödinger's cat for president!
Go watch the clip. In the context of Jon Stewart it's weird. He hasn't given the idea serious thought since the rally to restore sanity in ancient times.
Even Jon Stewart cannot defy the rules of logic.
Either he explicitly said "I am running for president" or he implied it by saying something other than "I am running for president."
"I'm not saying I'm running for president but I'm not not saying that, if you know what I mean"
(haven't seen the clip, just postulating)
That's not explicit. At most, it strongly implies he's running.
Pretty much whenever someone ends a sentence with "if you know what I mean", they are implying something.
It’s not about him actually running. It’s about him considering. You’re jumping ahead.
He’s never considered it an option before. But now he’s considering it.
Either way, he is either explicitly considering it or he implied that he's considering it.
It's not explicitly saying X, it's explicitly implying X. Really being explicit that they're implying the thing.
You can't explicitly imply something. You can either imply or be explicit.
Our understanding of how words work is different and that is ok. We've clearly communicated how we each interpret the phrase, so there's no misunderstanding in this case and we are unlikely to encounter the same phrase together again in the wild.
edit: root disagreement is that you believe the adverb "explicitly" cannot modify the verb "imply", whereas I believe it can. I doubt either of us will convince the other.
"Explicit" is literally defined as "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication"
Which makes sense, because "explicit" and "implicit" are antonyms. Do you think that something can "explosively implode"?