General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I supported the status quo [View all]BainsBane
(53,032 posts)No one asked what you said. We were discussing the meaning of the term status quo. You insisted it meant money in politics, but the common usage and dictionary definition indicates its meaning is far broader: "the existing state of affairs."
What you happen to have said to your friends isn't relevant to a discussion of the meaning of a word. You've repeatedly ignored my posts pointing to the dictionary definition and asking, if the purpose is to convey "moneyed politics," why not just say that? You obviously can't come up with a response to that very simple question, so you conspicuously avoid it.
You seem to think you're being clever, but you're not. You googled status quo and Trump and posted an article that refutes your claim rather than providing evidence for it. That is a matter of basic reading comprehension. Now you insist the only thing you claimed is what you said in private conversations during the general election. No. You insisted that my OP was changing the definition of the word and that is was wrong for me to use it as I have. That was your entree into this argument. So now you again change the terms of the discussion to compensate for your inability to defend your claims against basic questions about the standard meaning of words as defined by Merriam Websters. If the point were to reference "moneyed politics," people would say "moneyed politics." Instead, they deliberately keep it vague. That is a deliberate choice.
Unless you have had your head in the sand, this can't be the first time you've seen people point to the gendered and racial implications of the condemnation of status quo in regard to Obama and Clinton. Those criticisms have been waged for more than a year, so that anyone who truly wanted to limit their condemnation to money in politics would chose more precise language. That they don't says a great deal.