President Trump

[Spindrift]

I am not solidly anti-Hillary, and certainly don't hate her. She's very intelligent and tough. I just don't think she accomplished anything of note in 2016 except by way of failure. Almost any other politician, given her circumstances, could have done a better job. She played it safe, had no new ideas, no new strategies, and had no energy. Nothing. Remember, we're talking about the calendar year here. Her life of course is very consequential, and in many ways she's a very impressive person, although I am certainly not a fan of her personality, her ethics, or her politics. She would certainly be on anybody's list of most important public figures of the 21st century.

Yes we are talking about the calendar year, not the entire 21st century, why do you keep bringing that up? In 2016 she was the first woman candidate of a major party, won the popular vote by a sizable margin, was the most quoted person on Twitter (yes in this day and age, that's a big deal, sad, but true.). Even her failure was epic.

It's person of the year, not most successful, most popular or done most.


The Time person of the year is not always memorable. Do you know Owen D. Young, Hugh S. Johnson or Harlow Curtice?

 

[Distracted1]

Yes we are talking about the calendar year, not the entire 21st century, why do you keep bringing that up? In 2016 she was the first woman candidate of a major party, won the popular vote by a sizable margin, was the most quoted person on Twitter (yes in this day and age, that's a big deal, sad, but true.). Even her failure was epic.

It's person of the year, not most successful, most popular or done most.


The Time person of the year is not always memorable. Do you know Owen D. Young, Hugh S. Johnson or Harlow Curtice?

Or me?
I was person of the year 2006

 

[Spindrift]

Or me?
I was person of the year 2006

Me too, but I don't like to brag.

 

[NoahFence]

I am not solidly anti-Hillary, and certainly don't hate her. She's very intelligent and tough. I just don't think she accomplished anything of note in 2016 except by way of failure. Almost any other politician, given her circumstances, could have done a better job. She played it safe, had no new ideas, no new strategies, and had no energy. Nothing. Remember, we're talking about the calendar year here. Her life of course is very consequential, and in many ways she's a very impressive person, although I am certainly not a fan of her personality, her ethics, or her politics. She would certainly be on anybody's list of most important public figures of the 21st century.

Lie.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes we are talking about the calendar year, not the entire 21st century, why do you keep bringing that up? In 2016 she was the first woman candidate of a major party, won the popular vote by a sizable margin, was the most quoted person on Twitter (yes in this day and age, that's a big deal, sad, but true.). Even her failure was epic.

To claim that being the first female nominee is worthy of note is really stretching things. She was also the first former First Lady to win an election for federal office. She was also the first female Senator from New York, and the first female Secretary of State who had also been a Senator, and the first female Secretary of State who had also been a First Lady. She was also the first female to get paid over $250,000 for a speech by Goldman Sachs. I mean who cares about all of these "firsts?"

Also, winning the popular vote means nothing. That and $12 can get her a coffee at Starbucks. And Twitter? Seriously?

It's person of the year, not most successful, most popular or done most.

I am well aware of that. In my opinion, it means the most consequential. By definition (at least mine), a passive actor is not consequential. Bernie Sanders was far more consequential in my opinion.

The Time person of the year is not always memorable. Do you know Owen D. Young, Hugh S. Johnson or Harlow Curtice?

Seriously? Did he win it around the same time as Hung Well and Long Wang?

 

[Darat]

Some people are saying: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html

 

[Dr. Keith]

Seriously? Did he win it around the same time as Hung Well and Long Wang?

He won, stop teasing him about his tiny hands.

 

[Bob001]

Really? The hate for Hillary is just all encompassing. Can't even admit she was one of the two most prominent figures of the year.

I certainly would have voted for Hillary over Trump. But it's not hate, or even disrespect, to note that Bernie Sanders had more impact on the political process this year than Clinton, even pushing her to change some of her positions. And ultimately, her "my march to ultimate triumph is preordained" campaign is what put Trump in the White House. Trump didn't win; Clinton lost, and we'll all pay a heavy price.

 

[Spindrift]

To claim that being the first female nominee is worthy of note is really stretching things. She was also the first former First Lady to win an election for federal office. She was also the first female Senator from New York, and the first female Secretary of State who had also been a Senator, and the first female Secretary of State who had also been a First Lady. She was also the first female to get paid over $250,000 for a speech by Goldman Sachs. I mean who cares about all of these "firsts?"

Also, winning the popular vote means nothing. That and $12 can get her a coffee at Starbucks. And Twitter? Seriously?



I am well aware of that. In my opinion, it means the most consequential. By definition (at least mine), a passive actor is not consequential. Bernie Sanders was far more consequential in my opinion.



Seriously? Did he win it around the same time as Hung Well and Long Wang?

Usually winning the popular vote does mean something. It usually means you win.

I find it fascinating that someone can't bring themself to give her any credit. Dismissing being the first female major party candidate? If anything that will be the first line in her epitaph. You keep using the word 'passive'. Princess Bride and all that.

And we're talking about coming in second not even winning the person of the year. The inability to give her credit for anything is mind boggling.

 

[Belz...]

Also, winning the popular vote means nothing.

It means you're more popular than the guy who won the actual election.

 

[Belz...]

I find it fascinating that someone can't bring themself to give her any credit.

Well, to be fair he DID give her credit for past accomplishments. Just not this year.

 

[sunmaster14]

It means you're more popular than the guy who won the actual election.

No it doesn't.

 

[Belz...]

No it doesn't.

...you got more votes than the next guy. The other voters didn't bother to vote. By what definition aren't you more popular?

 

[sunmaster14]

...you got more votes than the next guy. The other voters didn't bother to vote. By what definition aren't you more popular?

By the dictionary definition, i.e. more people like you. Which is not the same thing as more people who decided to go the polls voted for you.

For example, there was not much incentive for a Republican to vote in California. The Senate race was between two Democrats, and Trump had no hope of winning the state.

 

[Spindrift]

By the dictionary definition, i.e. more people like you. Which is not the same thing as more people who decided to go the polls voted for you.

For example, there was not much incentive for a Republican to vote in California. The Senate race was between two Democrats, and Trump had no hope of winning the state.

What dictionary are you using that says winning the popular vote means one is less popular?

 

[Belz...]

By the dictionary definition, i.e. more people like you. Which is not the same thing as more people who decided to go the polls voted for you.

In that case I assume you object to the term "popular vote"?

 

[sunmaster14]

In that case I assume you object to the term "popular vote"?

No, but the term refers to a different meaning for the word popular than you assumed, i.e. "liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group."

Instead it refers to "intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals." Note the contrast with the electoral vote.

That is, it is closer to the usage of "popular" in the term "popular wisdom." Not the usage of "popular" as in "Raymond is popular because Everybody Loves Raymond."

 

[NoahFence]

Does it take much effort to completely disregard reality and common sense, or does it come naturally?

For me, to be able to say the person who won the popular vote isn't more popular actually takes some effort - wrapping my head around saying an obvious lie doesn't come easy.

 

[Spindrift]

Does it take much effort to completely disregard reality and common sense, or does it come naturally?

For me, to be able to say the person who won the popular vote isn't more popular actually takes some effort - wrapping my head around saying an obvious lie doesn't come easy.

Welcome to the post-factual age. Facts don't count if one disagrees with them. Definitions are flexible so words can mean whatever you want them to mean. One isn't lying if one can post hoc redefine the words.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"For reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow’s political culture by demolishing yesterday’s, Donald Trump is TIME’s 2016 Person of the Year."

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/?xid=homepage