Joe Biden is toast

[opinterph]

Merriam-Webster Thesaurus

firebrand​

 

[NotHardUp1]

I was contacted off the thread to say I had made up the definition I cited and that Google is wrong. To wit:

From the Lexico site (apparently relevant since Google uses them as the first definition in searches, and I don't know anyone in the field who would argue that the masses are using paper dictionaries or subscriptions like OED over internet searches):

Lexico.com is a new collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press (OUP) to help users worldwide with everyday language challenges. Lexico is powered by Oxford’s free English and Spanish dictionaries and features multi-language dictionary, thesaurus, and translation content.

This partnership is exciting but may lead to a few questions, so please look through our frequently asked questions below for some answers:

1. Are there still Oxford sites?

There are many Oxford sites that are still active, but the free English and Spanish content is now exclusively available through Lexico.

Before this collaboration, Dictionary.com was the leading online reference by hits or volume. That probably leads to its role now in conjunction with Oxford.

I do know people who favor one dictionary over another, just like there are people who think the King James Version, or Authorized Translation of The Bible, is the sole reference. That is not and has not been true of Merriam Webster for many decades in English.

For those so biased, Webster's is only 200 years old, and an American dictionary, not the authoritative English dictionary. The English have never favored Webster, obviously. Oxford has been at it for 1,000 years, hence they have a somewhat established following.

But, assuming we do use it, it still is dead on to my usage. Although journalism is by NO MEANS the definer of words, as they can be very loose or wrong, they do represent many readers' perception of meaning, or connotative definitions. By that standard alone, Webster confirms my and others' use. From their examples on the same page cited as the definitions:

Recent Examples on the Web

But the conservative firebrand is under growing pressure to make the audio public. — James Barragán, Dallas News, "As GOP leaders call for release of secret meeting audio, activist says Texas Rangers already have it," 26 Aug. 2019

Bishop Yao, however, is no antigovernment firebrand. — Ian Johnson, New York Times, "In Landmark Ceremony, a Catholic Bishop Is Installed in China," 28 Aug. 2019

Walsh, a firebrand in his own right, has been sharply critical of Trump and would be the second GOPer to attempt to primary the president. — cleveland.com, "Michigan GOP looks to nullify voter-approved anti-gerrymandering initiative: The Flyover," 23 Aug. 2019

The big question mark in this race is Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress and a progressive firebrand. — Ella Nilsen, Vox, "Live results for Minnesota primary elections," 14 Aug. 2018

That is, if one of the progressive firebrands dropped out, the other would take those suddenly unmoored voters and catapult past the centrist former vice president. — oregonlive.com, "Are Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren really in a dead heat? It’s complicated," 27 Aug. 2019

The two firebrands could have some like-minded candidates on Wednesday’s debate stage who believe Biden’s plans to improve the Affordable Care Act and introduce new climate protections do not go far enough. — Jennifer Epstein, Fortune, "Joe Biden Stakes Out Centrist Position on Immigration, Asylum Policy During Democratic Debate," 31 July 2019

According to him, firebrand imams stoked fervour for jihad. — The Economist, "Confessions of an Islamic State fighter," 16 Aug. 2019

He is considered close to Bjoern Hoecke, Alternative for Germany’s firebrand leader in Thuringia state. — Washington Post, "Top of the polls, German politician downplays far-right past," 13 Aug. 2019


These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'firebrand.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

In half of the examples Webster's has cited, the term is used to describe Democrats or progressives, and not in disparagement or from conservative sources. The term itself means what it means, someone on fire, like the stick. That fire may be used to incite people to give more to St. Jude's, or to shout down Dr. Peterson's followers.

The term can be used with connotative slurring, just as intellectual, or blue collar or gay can, but it is not limited to such use. Avoiding such words because they may be associated is always the option of the writer, but context of use is the reader's clue to whether connotative meaning was intended or not.

 

[opinterph]

Avoiding such words because they may be associated is always the option of the writer, but context of use is the reader's clue to whether connotative meaning was intended or not.

It becomes such a roller coaster ride to provide a descriptive term. If the writer knows that some subset of readers will find the term objectionable, perhaps the writer should choose a different option.

Near Antonyms of FIREBRAND:

peacemaker, reconciler, uniter

 

[NotHardUp1]

It becomes such a roller coaster ride to provide a descriptive term. If the writer knows that some subset of readers will find the term objectionable, perhaps the writer should choose a different option.

That is the rot.

Language that is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator is journalism. Sometimes, they go even lower.

If the users of English abandon all nuanced uses of vocabulary and grammar, then we're left with not clarity, but fundamentalism.

The secondary definitions of words are perfectly valid uses. The only thing that places them there is the frequency of use. That doesn't make those uses any less legitimate, merely less statistically common.

Limiting language to the first definitions only is arguing that the intended audience is always the least educated. It is not. Of all places, CE&P would not fit that description.

Citing antonyms isn't meaningful, as they are only antonyms for some meanings, the same as synonyms.

 

[rareboy]

Both Biden and Gabbard have dropped in the polls after the debate last week.

hmmmmmmmmm

 

[NotHardUp1]

Gabbard never had a significant percentage anyway.

Biden's drop is overdue. His performance has been lacking before the Trump smear.

The Young Turks claim Clinton put her toe in the water, but I refuse to believe she is that dense. I do agree the kingmakers are busily rummaging through binders full of women looking for a centrist. It's a bad sign.

TYT are right about the oligarchs not happy with a leftist leading. I'm ready to take my chances with one over the centrists who don't do shit but a slightly less obvious version of the GOPs ripoffs. Working men are getting screwed by both parties.

 

[eddielee]

Biden still has a good chance. The primary is still a long way off and Biden appeals to moderates like me.

 

[Telstra]

The Ohio debate tonight pretty much cemented it.

Although he spoke to issues from a position of experience and assertiveness, he repeatedly stammered, misspoke, chose the wrong word, etc. He sounded like early dementia.

That won't go unnotice in the coming months.

Senator Booker looks and sounds more presidential. Buttigieg might do it on a good day, but he doesn't have a chance in the general election. A gay simply isn't going to be elected before a woman in the US.

Senator Warren sounds confident, but she will quickly be painted as a tax and spend and defeated. Same for Bernie, whom I personally love.

But I do agree that the party must nominate a firebrand. Beto could be that man, too.

Prove me wrong. How could Biden possibly win?

Oh, and bonus question: Assume neither Biden nor Warren win the nomination. Which of the others will, and who would be a winning combo as VP? Extra points for choosing another candidate as VP. Maybe Bernie would be a great VP for a younger president.

LOL, you have watched a different debate then. Booker did NOT answer any questions asked.
His answers was useless, has zero benefits for normal Americans.

 

[Telstra]

I agree about Biden. The same goes for Bernie.

1960 They'll never elect a Catholic.
2008 They'll never elect a black man.
I don't buy it.
Pete is the best qualified. Character, judgement, integrity, unmatched intelligence, clarity of values, calm and clear leadership.
You should actually do some reading about him. Should I post links for you? Here is one: https://medium.com/@jensenholmespa/...ook-no-further-than-his-campaign-4021051c16a1

We do not need a firebrand that keeps everything whipped up and plays to the extremes. We need a strong, calm, strategic, consistent person to calm everything down after the Trump chaos. That's Pete.

Let's elect the smartest person for once.

mmmm Copy cat Pete, repeat Pete, sneaky Pete, nah no chance what so ever.
Stealing a candidate's talking points without giving any credit is not a good look.

 

[Telstra]

I think the winner of the debate was clear: Donald Trump.

Lex

Yes correct, these stupid candidates keep talking about Trump without any policies of their own is not going to win.

 

[Telstra]

They might want to work on electing a woman first... there's about 150 million of them in the US, after all.

That is not good.
They should work on who is the best instead of trying to get the ''first woman''. That is identity politics people hate.

 

[Telstra]

On one thing I'm still in lockstep with my far left brethren, it's time to stop limiting our aspirations to what we think Republicans will approve of, compromise is one thing, capitulation is another. I suppose that means I'm Mayor Pete over Warren because he is a compromise to the center, in this most important election since 1860, but still represents enough of the left to be acceptable. I'd love to have Bernie, and all his golden promises, but in an odd way, I've come to think of him as the traditional "Conservative" Progressive, and I wonder if it isn't time for some Post-Progressive thinking to carry the torch forward.

I said at the beginning that it was time to offload the baggage, and sadly baggage is what we're stuck dealing with. No more Biden, no more Warren, No more Bernie - Thank You. Please step aside, it's time for new blood.

I'd be positive on Yang but Telstra has convinced me never to vote for him. (snerk)

I'm sorry, but i'm just trying to share Yang's great policies.
Maybe my sharing style is wrong?? So how would i share it then?

 

[NotHardUp1]

And I wish you success with that, but my read of the land is that a moderate won't actually draw the DNC faithful out in large enough numbers to do the trick.

Although, Biden's early draw of black voters was a good sign. I believe we cannot regain the young voters that turned out for Obama without someone much more charismatic and vital than the Vice President.

 

[opinterph]

I'm sorry, but i'm just trying to share Yang's great policies.
Maybe my sharing style is wrong?? So how would i share it then?

There's a thread about him, but it's got a lot of videos clogging up the space … so the policy discussion gets overshadowed.

 

[Sausy]

Latest polls out today have him back in the 34% range with Warren and Sanders in the teens and Buttigieg below 10% after dramatically different polls signaling great weakening by Biden. His campaign war chest is very low so who knows, maybe the race does needs a jolt from outside as long as it's not Hillary Clinton..... though I hate to agree with establishment moderate types taking this "sky is falling" perspective about how the Dem nomination process is going.

 

[Alistair]

And I wish you success with that, but my read of the land is that a moderate won't actually draw the DNC faithful out in large enough numbers to do the trick.

Although, Biden's early draw of black voters was a good sign. I believe we cannot regain the young voters that turned out for Obama without someone much more charismatic and vital than the Vice President.

Mayor Pete is polling significantly low with black voters, with the cause being sighted as him being gay.

 

[nycguydowntown]

he's in first place in a few recent polls today--- this country will replace an evil old man with a decent old man---

 

[gsdx]

I'm sorry, but i'm just trying to share Yang's great [STRIKE]policies[/STRIKE] policy.

You talk about only one. No need for plurals.

 

[Telstra]

There's a thread about him, but it's got a lot of videos clogging up the space … so the policy discussion gets overshadowed.

A lot of grassroots are excited about Yang, thats why they make alot of videos about him.
You cannot ignore this sort of stuff. For some reason (i don't know what) some people simply opposed Yang, not willing to listen to him once, accused him of a con artist and a fraud with ZERO evidence.

 

[Telstra]

You talk about only one. No need for plurals.

Over 100 on his website.