You learn something new every day

trump, v.1

Pronunciation:  /trʌmp/    Forms:  see trump n.1; also ME Sc. trwmp.
Etymology: Middle English < Old French tromper (12th cent. in Godefroy), < trompe , trump n.1


 1.  b. To give forth a trumpet-like sound; spec. to break wind audibly (slang or vulgar).

c1425   Wyntoun Cron. vi. ii. 176   In publik placis ay fra þat day Scho was behynde þan trumpande ay; Sa wes scho schamyt in ilk steid.

1552   R. Huloet Abcedarium Anglico Latinum   Trump or let a crackke, or fart, crepo.

1598   J. Florio Worlde of Wordes   Trombeggiare, snort, to trump or bray as an asse.

1719   T. D’Urfey Wit & Mirth I. 35   She who does Trump, Through defect in her rump.

1798   R. Cumberland tr. Aristophanes Clouds ii,   I too..under sufferance trump against your frights..Have pinch’d and cholick’d my poor bowels so.

† trump, v.2

Forms:  Also ME Sc. trwmp, 15 trumpe, 15–16 tromp(e.
Etymology: < French tromper (14th cent.), of uncertain origin; perhaps the same word as trump v.1: see Littré.(Show Less)


Obs.  trans. To deceive, cheat. In quot. 1631, perh. identified with trump v.3

1487  (▸a1380)    J. Barbour Bruce (St. John’s Cambr.) xix. 712   Than sall we all be at our will, And thai sall let thame trwmpit [1489 Adv. trumpyt] Ill.

1513   G. Douglas tr. Virgil Æneid i. vi. 82   That fals man,..With wanhope trumpit the lele luwair.

1584   J. Carmichael Let. in D. Laing Misc. Wodrow Soc. (1844) 415   To haif bein trompit with fair words.

1598   R. Dallington View of Fraunce sig. E iij,   They very wrongfully tromped the heires of Edward the third, of their enioying this Crowne of France.

1631   B. Jonson New Inne i. iii. 103   When she [sc. Fortune] is pleas’d to trick, or trompe mankinde.

From Oxford English Dictionary




Here are 4 endorsements of the Democratic presidential candidates from a variety of serious-ish sources (by which I mean they are less likely to stick memes on your Facebook newsfeed, not that they are necessarily unbiased). There are 2 for Clinton and 2 for Sanders, 1 each from January and 1 each from this week.

I read all of these, mainly because I am just so overwhelmed and sick of all the hysterical Facebook posts going around on both sides about the Democratic candidates. Most of it is hyper-emotional finger pointing and very short on facts — and even shorter on any kind of perspective. So I wanted to read some opinions based on something.

NYTimes endorsement Clinton

The Nation endorsement Sanders

NYDaily News endorsement Clinton

Sen. Jeff Merkley(D-OR) endorsement Sanders

So, if you care, here’s what I got out of them. We have two worthy candidates running. They are very different in the way they go about things and their priorities, but I’m good with either one of them as President. I think they will both try to do what’s right for actual American people, and not what’s right for the wealthiest possible few or what’s right for the most insane and self-serving minorities (yeah, I’m talking about you, Republicans). I am leaning toward Sanders because of my own priorities — he is the only person I think will ever get around to doing anything about Citizens United and the disgusting spectacle of money in politics and government. But if Clinton wins the nomination, I will be happy to vote for the first woman president and then I will keep urging her to do something about campaign finance reform. Timothy Egan: This American Moment — The Surprises


The New York Times 

OPINION   | November 5, 2008
Timothy Egan: This American Moment — The Surprises
By Timothy Egan
If you look closely at who voted for Obama, you’ll see a lot of people who weren’t supposed to.


One of the better lines in Obama’s election night speech was a slap to the rejectionist politics of Bush. Rove always insisted a president only needed 50 percent plus one to win. And Bush governed that way, permanently angering half the population.

On Tuesday night, Obama reached out to the other half. For those who did not vote for him, he said, “I will be your president, too.”



Don’t Invalidate Your Ballot!

     I learned something very interesting last week when I went for a training session for election workers. It seems that you can unwittingly invalidate your ballot by making "distinguishing" marks on it. People have been known to initial their votes, draw little flowers or hearts or smilie faces, etc. Anything that would make your ballot identifiable as yours can lead to the ballot being declared VOID. The rule reads like this on our training materials (this is in Maine, and may be specific to the local voting procedures, but is based on the state election rules): 

Voided Ballots:   A voided ballot is a ballot that has been voted with distinguishing marks.

     The reasoning for this is that someone could flip through the stack of the ballots and pick out that one ballot and know who cast it.  The warden who led the training session told us that if the mark is on or beside the vote for a particular race on the ballot, only that race will be declared void. This didn’t make a lot of sense to me considering the reasoning, but that is apparently the way it will be carried out.

     If someone marks up their ballot this way and they are using a machine to accept ballots, the void ballot will be kicked back out and the voter may have an opportunity to redo it. But the election worker cannot technically tell them not to put hearts and flowers on it, that would be telling the voter "how to mark his or her ballot" and that is strictly not allowed.

     So try to resist that urge the pretty up your ballot or jot comments on it and