What is your Prediction for Trump?

[piezoe]

"Would be" addresses a future possibility"

As in something imagined....
And, as my German teacher used to say, auf Deutsch natürlich, after clicking her heels and saluting der Führer, "Was noch!." Then she would push me against the nearest wall and shoot me when I failed to give a complete answer.


Try "2," below

1. past of will1, in various senses.
   "he said he would be away for a couple of days"
2. (expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation.
   "he would lose his job if he were identified"
   • used to give advice.
     "I wouldn't drink that if I were you"
3. expressing a desire or inclination.
   "I would love to work in Prague"
4. expressing a polite request.
   "would you pour the wine, please?"
   • expressing willingness or consent.
     "who would live here?"
5. expressing a conjecture, opinion, or hope.
   "I would imagine that they'll want to keep it"
6. used to make a comment about behavior that is typical.
   "every night we would hear the boy crying"
7. literary
   expressing a wish or regret.
   "would that he had lived to finish it"

 

[piezoe]

Dems attempt to make themselves smarter and put down groups of Republicans intelligence almost every day.

I admit I'm no expert when it comes to "Dems" as you call them, but from what I have observed of them, they seem to be pretty good judges of what we call "that special Republican intellect." In the Deep South we have our own way of expressing it, as in, "He didn't realize he was the President of Puerto Rico. Bless his heart!"

 

[TJustice]

1. Here we have a thread discussing Democrats need to act more intelligent. Why did Con Man come here give us this grammar checker level of analysis?


Did the phrase "in order to" convey any info? Did it act as a signpost?

I believe it did.

I think you could easily argue that in natural conversation the use of "in order to" was useful because it was a signal to the reader to expect an second thought or concept.

For instance... here is a natural use of language... imo..


To be a great tennis player one must be a great athlete.

In order to be a great tennis player one must not only be a great athlete but one must have uncommon desire.

You are a fucking idiot.

1. "To be a narcissist", using "in order to" is meaningless and redundant.
2. The fact that you believe Trump cares for others.
3. Adding "Obama" to every argument.

 

[TJustice]

Is this the old democrat living in the South putting down others to feel superior post. I don't get it. If you were confident you were blessed with uncommon intelligence would you really have the need to put down groups of other people?

Yet we see it over and over, even from people like hillary with her deplorables comment or Obama with his clinging to their guns and bibles comment.

Is it some sort group pyschosis?
What ever happened to humility or thankfulness?

I admit I'm no expert when it comes to "Dems" as you call them, but from what I have observed of them, they seem to be pretty good judges of what we call "that special Republican intellect." In the Deep South we have our own way of expressing it, as in, "He didn't realize he was the President of Puerto Rico. Bless his heart!"

 

[piezoe]

In order to be a great tennis player one must not only be a great athlete but one must have uncommon desire.

I shall edit your sentence as E.B White might, were he with us.

In order [T]o be a great tennis player one must not only be a great athlete [,]but one must [also] have uncommon desire.​

This may be expressed succinctly as:

A great tennis player must be a great athlete and have uncommon desire. ​

From this example, we learn that the prepositional phrase "in order to" adds nothing of value to a sentence and may be eliminated.

 

[TJustice]

Thanks... for the redundancy.
Do you feel it added anything?

On a real note...

Hemmingway was great writer but does it make him a better writer than one who was not as concise?

I shall edit your sentence as E.B White might, were he with us.

In order [T]o be a great tennis player one must not only be a great athlete [,]but one must [also] have uncommon desire.​

This may be expressed succinctly as:

A great tennis player must be a great athlete and have uncommon desire. ​

From this example, we learn that the prepositional phrase "in order to" adds nothing of value to a sentence and may be eliminated.

 

[piezoe]

Is this the old democrat living in the South putting down others to feel superior post. I don't get it. If you were confident you were blessed with uncommon intelligence would you really have the need to to put down groups of other people?

Yet we see it over and over even from people like hillary with her deplorables comment or Obama with his clinging to their guns and bibles comment.

Is it some sort group pyschosis?
What ever happened to humility or thankfulness?

Why let these remarks make you feel inadequate? Instead, recognize them as what they are, uncommonly truthful and insightful observations of others by particularly well-educated individuals.

 

[piezoe]

Hemmingway was great writer but does it make him a better writer who was not as concise?

It was unclear to me whether you wanted to use Hemingway as an example of one whose writing was not very concise. If so, you may have picked a bad example. Hemingway, among all writers of his time, was uncommonly concise. He wrote mainly in simple sentences; nouns, verbs, and with few adjectives and fewer still adverbs. He shunned complex sentence structure. He was a friend of Gertrude Stein but despised by Alice Toklas, Stein's lover. Stein's writing was even more concise than Hemingway's. Her verse reached the pinnacle of conciseness, much of it entirely unintelligible.

 

[TJustice]

While your statement about Republicans was an attempt at a put down it was not very effective.

I doubt anyone felt put down.

It was just another chance for you to self declare your education.
As I said before, we see it as fake blondes declaring themselves to be smart.

Why let these remarks make you feel inadequate? Instead, recognize them as what they are, uncommonly truthful and insightful observations of others by particularly well-educated individuals.

 

[TJustice]

It was a typo. I corrected it before you posted.

Everyone who went to school a decade or more ago read Hemigway.
Every teacher told us he wrote like a reporter.
Everyone knows he was concise.

I am laughing as I am writing.
Hemingway being concise is not some esoteric cache of knowledge.
As my kids would say... you can't flex your Hemingway (knowledge on us.)

Perhaps you really do have a need to act superior. Its almost comical.
We know you are smart. So are some of the others here.


----

Although I liked Hemingway ..imagine trying to make this more concise.
I mean you could do it... but you would be wrong.


It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…

It was unclear to me whether you wanted to use Hemingway as an example of one whose writing was not very concise. If so, you may have picked a bad example. Hemingway, among all writers of his time, was uncommonly concise. He wrote mainly in simple sentences; nouns, verbs, and with few adjectives and fewer still adverbs. He shunned complex sentence structure. He was a friend of Gertrude Stein but despised by Alice Toklas, Stein's lover. Stein's writing was even more concise than Hemingway's. Her verse reached the pinnacle of conciseness, much of it entirely unintelligible.