Trump

[rowan]

I know. & Clinton would most certainly have got it had she been elected first woman president of America. However, while this would have undoubtedly been heralded by her flock as recognition of her virtuous qualities, it is not a title for do-gooders, of course, but rather an acknolwedgement of how much impact on the world an individual has made.

I'm not sure I've ever been so surprised by an election result in my life. I can only think of examples in sports which have caught me off guard to the same extent - Tyson's loss to Buster Douglas, for example, Brazil's loss to France in the 98 WC final, the All Blacks losses at the 99 & 03 RWCs. Never saw any of those coming either...

[cashead]

So why would they revert to "woman of the year," a title that hasn't been used since 1986? Hell, Angela Merkel was named Person of the Year last year, and you didn't see TIME reverting to "woman of the year" for that, did you?

Aside from that, saying "she'd have got it if she'd won" doesn't actually prove a thing. Like, duh. Every US President since FDR's election, with the exception of Gerald Ford, has been given that honour, usually in the year of that they become President-Elect. In fact, since TIME started doing "person of the year," the only US Presidents not to be named as such are Herbert Hoover, and Ford. So why would TIME go out of their way to name her "Woman of the Year," with "woman" apparently in bold and all caps? And what, exactly, are you trying to tell us here?

[rowan]

Stop nitpicking, Cashead. You're beginning to sound like a depraved lunatic.

[rowan]

WW3 talk

[cashead]

Stop nitpicking, Cashead. You're beginning to sound like a depraved lunatic.

You planning on answering the question?

[rowan]

Stop nitpicking, Cashead. You're beginning to sound like a depraved lunatic.

You planning on answering the question?

No

[canta_brian]

Stop nitpicking, Cashead. You're beginning to sound like a depraved lunatic.

You planning on answering the question?

No

Seems to me to be a perfectly valid question. Why is Clinton's sex such an issue to you? You have posted a couple of images around the site of Melania Trump. These have either been nude or near nude. Is that the issue? Do you prefer that women in politics are a) simply married to the politicians and b) look good naked?

And before you post the same response as always. There is a difference between "shooting the messenger" and calling you up on the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the bilge you tend to post on here.

[rowan]

You've completely ignored the fact that I mentioned a woman of the year would be a positive thing. That's because you have a shoot-the-messenger approach. You twist things to suit your own ego and imagine things which are not even there. When somebody says a woman of the year would be a positive thing, you somehow construe that as being ill-conceived. That is because you have such a massive chip on your shoulder you are incapable of viewing anything at all from a balanced perspective. There are plenty of crude things being posted on the Random Funny Images thread but you take issue with this one. Well, if you're so sensitive this offends you, don't open the thread. If you do open the thread, don't single out my posts for criticism. Or it just comes across as cowardly hypocrisy.

[canta_brian]

Even if he'd lost the election, he probably would've been TIME's Person of the Year. He was the one perpetually all over the news, so it's a logical choice.

No, it would have been Hillary for sure, only she would've been Time's WOMAN of the year, which would've been great - if only she hadn't been a war criminal complicit in the deaths of many thousands of women (and children and men, of course) in the Middle East & elsewhere.

I think you will find that most people think that it is far more positive that Time magazine doesn't feel the need to have a separate list for women. Once again you seem to have exposed yourself in public.

Oh, and BTW, the only issue I have with most of your Random Funny Images posts is the complete lack of Funny. And Random for that matter, most are oh so predictable.

Also, Chips/Shoulders? Pots/Kettles.

[rowan]

Anyway, the original point I was making, before everything went pear-shaped, was to disagree with Cashead's assertion Trump would have been Person of the Year even if he'd lost. We'll never know, of course, but I am pretty sure it would've been Clinton had she won and become the first female president.

[rowan]

Joining Hitler, Stalin and Nixon.

Why stop there? If we're talking about genocidal maniacs, Winston Churchill and pactically every American president since its inception has received it, some of them twice - including such charming individuals as G W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon B Johnson, JFK and Dwight Eisenhower. But Clinton, whose own husband is also on the list, would have been more likely to follow in that vein that Trump.

[WaspInWales]

Anyone would think you're slightly obsessed by Clinton...

[rowan]

Anyone would think you guys were slightly obsessed by Trump.

So we have a thread about Trump, you can compare him to Hilter but you can't mention Clinton, nor refer to the fact she is female, nor to the fact she had a more aggressive foreign policy lined up than the current Time Person of the Year.

Ooookay . . .

[rowan]

Why stop there? If we're talking about genocidal maniacs, Winston Churchill and pactically every American president since its inception has received it, some of them twice - including such charming individuals as G W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon B Johnson, JFK and Dwight Eisenhower. But Clinton, whose own husband is also on the list, would have been more likely to follow in that vein that Trump.

Hell, even John Dulles is in there. If they ever named me Time Person of the Year I'd turn it down flat...

[cashead]

If they ever named me Time Person of the Year I'd turn it down flat...

Yeah, if.

[WaspInWales]

Anyone would think you guys were slightly obsessed by Trump.

So we have a thread about Trump, you can compare him to Hilter but you can't mention Clinton, nor refer to the fact she is female, nor to the fact she had a more aggressive foreign policy lined up than the current Time Person of the Year.

Ooookay . . .

As you can clearly see, no one has stopped you mentioning Clinton, her gender or her foreign policy as you do so in just about every thread. That was my point, you seem somewhat obsessed by the woman.

Trump is a lot more relevant than Clinton now, especially in regard to foreign policy, potential war, suffering of millions around the world. I think it makes much more sense to concentrate on what the orange fuckwit is going to do as POTUS, as opposed to what Clinton may do as POTUS.

[rowan]

Trump is a lot more relevant than Clinton now, especially in regard to foreign policy, potential war, suffering of millions around the world. I think it makes much more sense to concentrate on what the orange fuckwit is going to do as POTUS, as opposed to what Clinton may do as POTUS.

I say, old chap, rather obsessed with this fellow and the color of his hair, aren't you? Now, please write wot I want you to write about in future, there's a good native . . .

If they ever named me Time Person of the Year I'd turn it down flat...

Yeah, if.

I might get it just for dealing with you chumps

[WaspInWales]

Trump is a lot more relevant than Clinton now, especially in regard to foreign policy, potential war, suffering of millions around the world. I think it makes much more sense to concentrate on what the orange fuckwit is going to do as POTUS, as opposed to what Clinton may do as POTUS.

I say, old chap, rather obsessed with this fellow and the color of his hair, aren't you? Now, please write wot I want you to write about in future, there's a good native . . .

Again, no one is stopping you from posting what you want and your immature responses, such as above, and the countless of other instances where you feel it necessary to whine that you are being prevented from airing your point of views are just silly....

Because, unless I'm mistaken, all you do is post your point of views, regardless of how relevant they are to a thread. Then you complain about not being able to have your say...after having your say.

I don't get it, unless you're exercising your right to free speech and right to protest at the same time?

You're the perfect advert for democracy

[rowan]

Trump is a lot more relevant than Clinton now, especially in regard to foreign policy, potential war, suffering of millions around the world. I think it makes much more sense to concentrate on what the orange fuckwit is going to do as POTUS, as opposed to what Clinton may do as POTUS.

This being your idea of a mature response in line with advocating free speech?

Ooookay . . .

[WaspInWales]

Trump is a lot more relevant than Clinton now, especially in regard to foreign policy, potential war, suffering of millions around the world. I think it makes much more sense to concentrate on what the orange fuckwit is going to do as POTUS, as opposed to what Clinton may do as POTUS.

This being your idea of a mature response in line with advocating free speech?

Ooookay . . .

I think it's fairly mature yes. Calling the president-elect an 'orange fuckwit' probably advocates free speech too.

Ooookay . . .

[cashead]

Ah, the "free speech" argument. Yeah, I'm sure people pointing out that you post the same fucking talking points over and over is part of that whole pesky free speech thing you're so keen to advocate for.

[rowan]

Yaah, I do do that, don't I

Ok, I'm going to be much more careful now that I understand everything I write is being thoroughly scrutinized and analyzed down to the minutest detail. This is a new beginning, folks. No more repetition from yours truly. I'm going to keep records of every opinion I express on this forum and do my absolute utmost never to express it again in the future.

Of course, I will be expecting the same standards from others, so let there be no more references to Trump's sanity or choice of hair dye. Those have been done to death, if you don't mind. . .

[canta_brian]

Of course, I will be expecting the same standards from others, so let there be no more references to Trump's sanity or choice of hair dye. Those have been done to death, if you don't mind. . .

Don't be such a penis

Having some of your posts criticised does not give you the right to dictate what others may or may not comment on.

I love emoticons they give so much additional weight to everything I say



Also, it seems the American intelligence agencies now believe that the Russians Hacked the RNC as well as the democrats. They chose to pass on only the democrat data to WikiLeaks however.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/ob ... -news&_r=2

All seems a bit woolly for me. But I would be interested in seeing what sort of digital fingerprints they are seeing in common on both accounts.

[rowan]

Of course, I will be expecting the same standards from others, so let there be no more references to Trump's sanity or choice of hair dye. Those have been done to death, if you don't mind. . .

Don't be such a penis

Having some of your posts criticised does not give you the right to dictate what others may or may not comment on.

I love emoticons they give so much additional weight to everything I say



Also, it seems the American intelligence agencies now believe that the Russians Hacked the RNC as well as the democrats. They chose to pass on only the democrat data to WikiLeaks however.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/ob ... -news&_r=2

All seems a bit woolly for me. But I would be interested in seeing what sort of digital fingerprints they are seeing in common on both accounts.

Boring, repetitive, pointless and juvenile. Pots, kettles, black . . .

[Digby]

Trump setting out clearly that when he said Carrier wouldn't be moving and they'd keep their jobs in the US that he didn't mean that. Which I think will not really come to a surprise to anyone, other than perhaps the idiots who voted for him, that when Trump opens his mouth you can't rely on the words he uses.

Turns out he has now rushed to get them to save some jobs at Carrier , but the factory jobs that were moving to Mexico are still nearly all going to Mexico, and the jobs being saved detail a lot of R&D jobs and some supporting admin that were never leaving in the first place. Still by agreeing to basically do nothing to keep the jobs that Trump said would be kept it seems Carrier will dodge the 35% import tax.