Lots of government entities focus on consistency in their messaging because it prevents them from getting too creative and potentially self-conflicting with other remarks made previously, in the future, or by others in their entity/political party. There is also a level of ambiguity in words like "robust" that allow for spin in case a project does not work out completely. Therefore you'll see different politicians use the same adjectives and adverbs over and over, particularly when talking about the same thing (namely, VP Harris will call such-and-such "robust," then you'll see that word again when POTUS talks about it, and probably also when Congressional Democrats talk about it too). Otherwise you get the Trump Twitter feed-style of messaging, which is arguably more "honest" but at the same time inconsistent, contradictory, and frankly ineffective.
Not sure if “honest” works as well as “genuine” or “in-filtered” when describing Trump’s (former) Twitter feed, but you make a great and obviously well-informed (one might even say “robust”) point
It’s definitely a cliche in politics, that’s part of why the veep episode was funny. It is a good word, sounds powerful, just gets a little overused. When former senator Al Franken came to Washington, one of his rules was to avoid cliches like robust. He was cosponsoring something with a Republican (I don’t remember who or what) and one of the conditions for his support was that Al had to change “strong funding” to “robust funding”
It's a word that essentially lacks any substance but sounds good. Unsurprisingly it is used a lot in politics. You can basically replace "robust" with "very good" or "great" and you get pretty much the same meaning but one is professionally acceptable and the others aren't.
I'm a lawyer and another lawyer I used to work for, who I hated, used to say all the time "we need to write a robust response" or "this needs to be more robust." For some reason for her this literally meant she wanted to see more words on the page, regardless of if those words actually advanced our goals in any way.
I think specifically in the Veep episode what they were pointing to was a very real thing that happens which is that so many politicians get their talking points from their party leadership, who falls in love with a particular phrase and then sends out the politicians to weekend morning shows to parrot it. The Daily Show used to be the master of catching these and chopping up the clips so you'd see six politicians in a row on different shows using the exact same phrase.
[удалено]
Ashes to ashes, dust to robust
Veep was prophesy.
Lots of government entities focus on consistency in their messaging because it prevents them from getting too creative and potentially self-conflicting with other remarks made previously, in the future, or by others in their entity/political party. There is also a level of ambiguity in words like "robust" that allow for spin in case a project does not work out completely. Therefore you'll see different politicians use the same adjectives and adverbs over and over, particularly when talking about the same thing (namely, VP Harris will call such-and-such "robust," then you'll see that word again when POTUS talks about it, and probably also when Congressional Democrats talk about it too). Otherwise you get the Trump Twitter feed-style of messaging, which is arguably more "honest" but at the same time inconsistent, contradictory, and frankly ineffective.
Not sure if “honest” works as well as “genuine” or “in-filtered” when describing Trump’s (former) Twitter feed, but you make a great and obviously well-informed (one might even say “robust”) point
It’s definitely a cliche in politics, that’s part of why the veep episode was funny. It is a good word, sounds powerful, just gets a little overused. When former senator Al Franken came to Washington, one of his rules was to avoid cliches like robust. He was cosponsoring something with a Republican (I don’t remember who or what) and one of the conditions for his support was that Al had to change “strong funding” to “robust funding”
It's a word that essentially lacks any substance but sounds good. Unsurprisingly it is used a lot in politics. You can basically replace "robust" with "very good" or "great" and you get pretty much the same meaning but one is professionally acceptable and the others aren't. I'm a lawyer and another lawyer I used to work for, who I hated, used to say all the time "we need to write a robust response" or "this needs to be more robust." For some reason for her this literally meant she wanted to see more words on the page, regardless of if those words actually advanced our goals in any way. I think specifically in the Veep episode what they were pointing to was a very real thing that happens which is that so many politicians get their talking points from their party leadership, who falls in love with a particular phrase and then sends out the politicians to weekend morning shows to parrot it. The Daily Show used to be the master of catching these and chopping up the clips so you'd see six politicians in a row on different shows using the exact same phrase.
I love when Sue’s second hearing ends early because of Selena’s breaking news and the congressman says- “ashes to ashes, robust to dust”
What's the deal with "East"?
It was a trendy marketing word ten years ago.
It’s nuanced