Lets look at what's happening around the country.
Dims are running away from him faster than any POTUS in history, the recent vote of 414-0 confirms this.
Then you have a rebuke of socialism or anything liberal. The leftists tried their damnedest to kill Rush and talk radio in general by a threat to their advertisers, which actually completely backfired, now these same advertisers that ran are feeling the backlash from their customers.
Then we have SCOTUS and Husseincare and the left is already trying to spin defeat as a win.
This is only the beginning of the end of liberalism as we know it, I predict what were going to see in the following months will be a Rightward move by many Dims trying to save their seat in the House, but to no avail, the left is dead, the media just hasn't gotten the invite for the wake yet.
Am I the only one that sees this, or just the first to broach the issue?
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Lets look at what's happening around the country.
Dims are running away from him faster than any POTUS in history, the recent vote of 414-0 confirms this.
Then you have a rebuke of socialism or anything liberal. The leftists tried their damnedest to kill Rush and talk radio in general by a threat to their advertisers, which actually completely backfired, now these same advertisers that ran are feeling the backlash from their customers.
Then we have SCOTUS and Husseincare and the left is already trying to spin defeat as a win.
This is only the beginning of the end of liberalism as we know it, I predict what were going to see in the following months will be a Rightward move by many Dims trying to save their seat in the House, but to no avail, the left is dead, the media just hasn't gotten the invite for the wake yet.
Am I the only one that sees this, or just the first to broach the issue?
I doubt seriously you're the only or the first. But you could be wrong, too. He's not a lame duck until he loses in November. Which you predicted, and you may be right. But will Romney be that much different? And if he is what has emerged from the cauldron of right wing cannibalism, how right wing is the right wing?
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
I doubt seriously you're the only or the first. But you could be wrong, too. He's not a lame duck until he loses in November. Which you predicted, and you may be right. But will Romney be that much different? And if he is what has emerged from the cauldron of right wing cannibalism, how right wing is the right wing?
Ummmmm, a "lame duck" is a sitting president... Wow.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Lets look at what's happening around the country.
Dims are running away from him faster than any POTUS in history, the recent vote of 414-0 confirms this.
Then you have a rebuke of socialism or anything liberal. The leftists tried their damnedest to kill Rush and talk radio in general by a threat to their advertisers, which actually completely backfired, now these same advertisers that ran are feeling the backlash from their customers.
Then we have SCOTUS and Husseincare and the left is already trying to spin defeat as a win.
This is only the beginning of the end of liberalism as we know it, I predict what were going to see in the following months will be a Rightward move by many Dims trying to save their seat in the House, but to no avail, the left is dead, the media just hasn't gotten the invite for the wake yet.
Am I the only one that sees this, or just the first to broach the issue?
Totally. This marxist takeover is being fought. This has been a good past few days...
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
Ummmmm, a "lame duck" is a sitting president... Wow.
I am pleased to be the one to correct you. A lame duck is an incumbent who sought re-election but lost, making him a "lame duck" for the period between the election and the inauguration of his successor. Look it up. My turn to say "wow."
Some say a lame duck is also an office holder who cannot seek re-election, like a president in his second term. But that is not a lame duck. That's a fellow who doesn't have to be quite as careful with his politics. And he will never be a lame duck because he cannot seek re-election.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
I doubt seriously you're the only or the first. But you could be wrong, too. He's not a lame duck until he loses in November. Which you predicted, and you may be right. But will Romney be that much different? And if he is what has emerged from the cauldron of right wing cannibalism, how right wing is the right wing?
LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.
Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.
If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.
Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:43:33 AM
I am pleased to be the one to correct you. A lame duck is an incumbent who sought re-election but lost, making him a "lame duck" for the period between the election and the inauguration of his successor. Look it up. My turn to say "wow."
Some say a lame duck is also an office holder who cannot seek re-election, like a president in his second term. But that is not a lame duck. That's a fellow who doesn't have to be quite as careful with his politics. And he will never be a lame duck because he cannot seek re-election.
Though that is only partially true, note the qualifier from wiki.
Lame duck (politics), an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 11:37:38 AM
Totally. This marxist takeover is being fought. This has been a good past few days...
People are pissed, both Right and Left.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.
Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.
If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.
Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?
You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.
A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost. It is not limited to POTUS. If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer.
A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts. It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost. They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up. Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do. Governors, too.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:58:27 AM
You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.
A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost. It is not limited to POTUS. If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer.
A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts. It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost. They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up. Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do. Governors, too.
Quit obfuscating, that post had nothing to do with your comment.
Try again.
LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:43:33 AM
I am pleased to be the one to correct you. A lame duck is an incumbent who sought re-election but lost, making him a "lame duck" for the period between the election and the inauguration of his successor. Look it up. My turn to say "wow."
Some say a lame duck is also an office holder who cannot seek re-election, like a president in his second term. But that is not a lame duck. That's a fellow who doesn't have to be quite as careful with his politics. And he will never be a lame duck because he cannot seek re-election.
No, Elmer. You are showing your lack of knowledge, yet again. Like we have done before, several times, please go back and research, educate yourself, and then come back and tell me I'm right.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:58:27 AM
You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.
A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost. It is not limited to POTUS. If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer.
A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts. It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost. They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up. Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do. Governors, too.
This is rich.... I hope Bert sees this too....
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 12:09:28 PM
This is rich.... I hope Bert sees this too....
So do I. And may I say that it is folks like you, Bert, and Solar that make me realize that reasonable people need not fear the TEA party. The average TEA party believer is no smarter than the average TEA party candidate.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:05:31 PM
Quit obfuscating, that post had nothing to do with your comment.
Try again.
LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.
Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.
If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.
Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?
Okay genius. It's your board. But if I understand you and the other genius correctly, "you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck." Is that what you two geniuses are asserting?
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
So do I. And may I say that it is folks like you, Bert, and Solar that make me realize that reasonable people need not fear the TEA party. The average TEA party believer is no smarter than the average TEA party candidate.
Elmer, you are wrong. Please quit embarrassing yourself and go learn what a lame duck is. It's a sitting president who can't get anything done. It's that simple.
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 12:16:23 PM
Elmer, you are wrong. Please quit embarrassing yourself and go learn what a lame duck is. It's a sitting president who can't get anything done. It's that simple.
Now it's my turn to laugh. Maybe in the taxed dictionary, it is. But nowhere else.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:16:10 PM
Okay genius. It's your board. But if I understand you and the other genius correctly, "you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck." Is that what you two geniuses are asserting?
Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 12:08:15 PM
No, Elmer. You are showing your lack of knowledge, yet again. Like we have done before, several times, please go back and research, educate yourself, and then come back and tell me I'm right.
Are you saying he doesn't have to be POTUS?
I'm still waiting on that lame duck article you claim exists from the leftist media.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:20:26 PM
Are you saying he doesn't have to be POTUS?
I'm still waiting on that lame duck article you claim exists from the leftist media.
Where did I claim there was a lame duck article in the leftist media? Your reading comprehension is worse than I thought, and I thought it was pretty bad already.
I am saying the term "lame duck" refers to an office holder who sought re-election and lost. Not necessarily POTUS. Obama will not be a lame duck president UNLESS he loses in November. Then he will be one from the date of the election until the inauguration of Mitt Romney, who will clearly be the RINO nominee. So much for the TEA party, huh?
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:20:22 PM
Now it's my turn to laugh. Maybe in the taxed dictionary, it is. But nowhere else.
I gave you proof that it doesn't necessarily mean after the election.
The term applies to a POTUS without power.
No one is wrong here, but regardless, Hussein will not be able to accomplish one more piece of damage from here on out.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
Where did I claim there was a lame duck article in the leftist media? Your reading comprehension is worse than I thought, and I thought it was pretty bad already.
I am saying the term "lame duck" refers to an office holder who sought re-election and lost. Not necessarily POTUS. Obama will not be a lame duck president UNLESS he loses in November. Then he will be one from the date of the election until the inauguration of Mitt Romney, who will clearly be the RINO nominee. So much for the TEA party, huh?
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
I doubt seriously you're the only or the first.
So I asked you to find an article stating so.
Let me help you out, the only one I found was from Al Jazera on line. :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:31:02 PM
So I asked you to find an article stating so.
Let me help you out, the only one I found was from Al Jazera on line. :laugh:
Your reading comprehension is really, really poor if you think a statement that begins "I doubt" claims there is an article in the leftist media about anything whatsoever.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:27:51 PM
I gave you proof that it doesn't necessarily mean after the election.
The term applies to a POTUS without power.
No one is wrong here, but regardless, Hussein will not be able to accomplish one more piece of damage from here on out.
Like I said, it's your board.
Someone IS wrong. Taxed and you both are wrong about the definition of the term "lame duck." But you can't admit it, I know, and I don't expect you to.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:58:27 AM
You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.
A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost. It is not limited to POTUS. If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer.
A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts. It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost. They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up. Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do. Governors, too.
LOL! Also included as a lame duck is one whom is not able to run again due to term limits and he carries no weight with the other politicians.....inotherwords, you are politically expendable and are of no use to anyone in the political arena.
Elmer....you can do better
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 29, 2012, 01:05:07 PM
LOL! Also included as a lame duck is one whom is not able to run again due to term limits and he carries no weight with the other politicians.....inotherwords, you are politically expendable and are of no use to anyone in the political arena.
Elmer....you can do better
Tell that to Haley Barbour. He served two terms as gov of Miss'ippi, could not run for a third, and kicked ass his second term more than he did his first. Was even considered presidential material
Lookit, I know nobody on this board makes mistakes. I'll let it go.
I'll take Miriam Webster's definition (and #s 1 and 3 apply to Obama now):
Definition of LAME DUCK:
1: one that is weak or that falls behind in ability or achievement; especially chiefly British : an ailing company
2: an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor
3: one whose position or term of office will soon end
Quote from: bluelieu on March 29, 2012, 02:07:28 PM
I'll take Miriam Webster's definition (and #s 1 and 3 apply to Obama now):
Definition of LAME DUCK:
1: one that is weak or that falls behind in ability or achievement; especially chiefly British : an ailing company
2: an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor
3: one whose position or term of office will soon end
Merriam Webster's definition is indeed accurate, but not necessarily applicable to Obama. Yet. If he gets unelected in November, definition 2 will fit. Definition 3 is somewhat nonsensical. Under that definition, every officeholder becomes a lame duck at some point. But you'd have to know the time period contemplated by "term of office will soon end." Under that definition, even St. Ronald was a lame duck. Twice.
The fact is, the term lame duck in American politics was coined to refer to officeholders who meet definition 2 in cases where the incumbent sought, but did not win, re-election. Taxed and solar will argue that, but that does not change anything.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 01:22:29 PM
Tell that to Haley Barbour. He served two terms as gov of Miss'ippi, could not run for a third, and kicked ass his second term more than he did his first. Was even considered presidential material
Lookit, I know nobody on this board makes mistakes. I'll let it go.
Did his party have the majority? If so he is not a lame duck....that's a blank check to do what he wished.
Oops....I believe you messed up but I'll overlook this one.
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 29, 2012, 03:10:57 PM
Did his party have the majority? If so he is not a lame duck....that's a blank check to do what he wished.
Oops....I believe you messed up but I'll overlook this one.
His party had it in the Senate but not the House. Similar to Obummer's situation, where his party has the Senate but not the House. No, I did not mess up. But you (and others) are eloquently proving that TEA partiers cannot admit any sort of error, even a minor one. It goes against their DNA.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Merriam Webster's definition is indeed accurate, but not necessarily applicable to Obama. Yet.
Now you're starting to get it, it is applicable, he is without power.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Now you're starting to get it, it is applicable, he is without power.
Really? The president of the united states is "without power?"
You really believe that, too. That's the funny part.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Merriam Webster's definition is indeed accurate, but not necessarily applicable to Obama. Yet. If he gets unelected in November, definition 2 will fit. Definition 3 is somewhat nonsensical. Under that definition, every officeholder becomes a lame duck at some point. But you'd have to know the time period contemplated by "term of office will soon end." Under that definition, even St. Ronald was a lame duck. Twice.
The fact is, the term lame duck in American politics was coined to refer to officeholders who meet definition 2 in cases where the incumbent sought, but did not win, re-election. Taxed and solar will argue that, but that does not change anything.
You're wrong. Every president within my life time serving his second term has been refereed to as a lame duck. I've heard the congress being refereed to as a lame duck congress after congressional elections also, but I've never heard the term applied to a particular congressman.
Quote from: Harry on March 29, 2012, 05:26:29 PM
You're wrong. Every president within my life time serving his second term has been refereed to as a lame duck. I've heard the congress being refereed to as a lame duck congress after congressional elections also, but I've never heard the term applied to a particular congressman.
Okay.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 05:07:27 PM
Really? The president of the united states is "without power?"
You really believe that, too. That's the funny part.
His party abandoned him, which left him powerless.
Of course he still has what are referred to as dictatorial powers of the office, but without the backing of his party, he is powerless to push anymore of his Marxist agenda upon the nation.
But you knew that, you just wanted to be a dick head regardless.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 06:50:35 PM
His party abandoned him, which left him powerless.
Of course he still has what are referred to as dictatorial powers of the office, but without the backing of his party, he is powerless to push anymore of his Marxist agenda upon the nation.
But you knew that, you just wanted to be a dick head regardless.
Thanks for your insight. It is truly breathtakingly amazing.
OK FUDDY
Lame duck (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.
Contents
[hide]
1 Description
2 Origins of the term
3 Examples
3.1 Australia
3.2 United States
3.2.1 Examples
3.3 Canada
4 References
5 See also
[edit] Description
The status can be due to
having lost a re-election bid
choosing not to seek another term at the expiration of the current term
a term limit which keeps the official from running for that particular office again
the abolishment of the office, which must nonetheless be served out until the end of the official's term.[1]
Lame duck officials tend to have less political power, as other elected officials are less inclined to cooperate with them. However, lame ducks are also in the peculiar position of not facing the consequences of their actions in a subsequent election, giving them greater freedom to issue unpopular decisions or appointments. Examples include last-minute midnight regulations issued by executive agencies of outgoing U.S. presidential administrations and executive orders issued by outgoing presidents.[2] Such actions date back to the Judiciary Act of 1801 ("Midnight Judges Act"), in which Federalist President John Adams and the outgoing 6th Congress amended the Judiciary Act to create more federal judge seats for Adams to appoint and the Senate to confirm before the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated and the Democratic-Republican majority 7th Congress convened. In more recent history, U.S. President Bill Clinton was widely criticized for issuing 140 pardons and other acts of executive clemency on his last day in office, including two former close colleagues, donors, fellow Democratic members and his own half-brother.[3]
Quote from: REDWHITEBLUE2 IRISH REBEL on March 29, 2012, 08:42:07 PM
OK FUDDY
Lame duck (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.
Contents
[hide]
1 Description
2 Origins of the term
3 Examples
3.1 Australia
3.2 United States
3.2.1 Examples
3.3 Canada
4 References
5 See also
[edit] Description
The status can be due to
having lost a re-election bid
choosing not to seek another term at the expiration of the current term
a term limit which keeps the official from running for that particular office again
the abolishment of the office, which must nonetheless be served out until the end of the official's term.[1]
Lame duck officials tend to have less political power, as other elected officials are less inclined to cooperate with them. However, lame ducks are also in the peculiar position of not facing the consequences of their actions in a subsequent election, giving them greater freedom to issue unpopular decisions or appointments. Examples include last-minute midnight regulations issued by executive agencies of outgoing U.S. presidential administrations and executive orders issued by outgoing presidents.[2] Such actions date back to the Judiciary Act of 1801 ("Midnight Judges Act"), in which Federalist President John Adams and the outgoing 6th Congress amended the Judiciary Act to create more federal judge seats for Adams to appoint and the Senate to confirm before the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated and the Democratic-Republican majority 7th Congress convened. In more recent history, U.S. President Bill Clinton was widely criticized for issuing 140 pardons and other acts of executive clemency on his last day in office, including two former close colleagues, donors, fellow Democratic members and his own half-brother.[3]
I pointed this out earlier, explaining the the term Especially is a qualifier.
But the first part of the sentence explains where he is wrong.
As usual, he ignored it. :rolleyes:
A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.
The numbskull in cheif is trying his damndest to step on his own d..er I mean toes.
Now he's after fossil fuels again even as gas prices increase....stupid.
Billy
He will be going into full Executive Order mode very soon. :popcorn:
Quote from: Bad water BILLY on March 29, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
The numbskull in cheif is trying his damndest to step on his own d..er I mean toes.
Now he's after fossil fuels again even as gas prices increase....stupid.
Billy
Yet the left claim high gas prices are a good thing. :laugh:
http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/high-gas-prices/ (http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/high-gas-prices/)
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 09:05:34 PM
Yet the left claim high gas prices are a good thing. :laugh:
http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/high-gas-prices/ (http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/high-gas-prices/)
The idiot forgot to mention that anyone with Gas and oil companies in their 401 K is going to see a rise in their stocks.
An Amazingly stupid bit of spin.
Billy
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 03:15:46 PM
His party had it in the Senate but not the House. Similar to Obummer's situation, where his party has the Senate but not the House. No, I did not mess up. But you (and others) are eloquently proving that TEA partiers cannot admit any sort of error, even a minor one. It goes against their DNA.
Yep and we see what it got him in the end for not abiding by the accepted norms in politics..............bad press and very little outgoing support.
I am not a TEA party member yet cause I have found ways to hide that precious resource the goobermint wants to take from you......your money. So yeah.......Uncle Sam can get the hell out of my back pocket.
Quote from: Bad water BILLY on March 29, 2012, 09:40:47 PM
The idiot forgot to mention that anyone with Gas and oil companies in their 401 K is going to see a rise in their stocks.
An Amazingly stupid bit of spin.
Billy
I guess they can get away with saying stupid stuff because their constituency is too stupid to understand basic economics.
You and I catch it, but the left eats up the sound bites, with no understanding of the mechanics of the issue.
Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 08:47:36 PM
I pointed this out earlier, explaining the the term Especially is a qualifier.
But the first part of the sentence explains where he is wrong.
As usual, he ignored it. :rolleyes:
A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.
Didn't ignore it. I pointed out the meaningless of it. If a lame duck is any official approaching the end of his term, then Ronald Reagan was one twice. He had two terms, each had an end, ergo he was a lame duck twice.
But the origin of the term lame duck clearly indicates it is a pejorative term. I do not believe lame duck would be an apt description of the Gipper for either of his terms.
A
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 30, 2012, 12:18:00 PM
Didn't ignore it. I pointed out the meaningless of it. If a lame duck is any official approaching the end of his term, then Ronald Reagan was one twice. He had two terms, each had an end, ergo he was a lame duck twice.
But the origin of the term lame duck clearly indicates it is a pejorative term. I do not believe lame duck would be an apt description of the Gipper for either of his terms.
A
A lame duck is one without power, Reagan was never without, except towards the end of his last term.
Hussein is already without power, and we have yet to name a successor.
That's the epitome of lame duck.