Julian Assange Could Be Time's 'Person Of The Year', And Is Also Still Not Dead (time.com) 145
Long-time Slashdot reader cstacy noticed Saturday that Julian Assange hadn't made any communications or public appearances in six weeks. But today an anonymous reader writes:
Julian Assange is still not dead, reports The Inquisitr, noting "the WikiLeaks founder made his first appearance in weeks, speaking with an interviewer for a conference in Beirut" including comments about the recent death of Fidel Castro.
Assange is also in the running to be chosen as "Person of the Year" in Time magazine's annual online reader's poll, and last Monday even moved briefly into first place, inching past Donald Trump. "It's worth noting that the poll presents people alphabetically," Time reported, "so Assange is the first option participants consider and Trump comes near the end of the poll."
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%), and Donald Trump is locked in a tie for fourth place with India Prime Minister Narendra Modi at 9%. Time worked with Opentopic and IBM's Watson to assemble the initial list for reader's votes, which also included Apple CEO Tim Cook and FBI director James Comey. Surprisingly, a few celebrities also turned up on the list too, including comedian Samantha Bee, Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Olympic gymnast Simone Biles.
Assange is also in the running to be chosen as "Person of the Year" in Time magazine's annual online reader's poll, and last Monday even moved briefly into first place, inching past Donald Trump. "It's worth noting that the poll presents people alphabetically," Time reported, "so Assange is the first option participants consider and Trump comes near the end of the poll."
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%), and Donald Trump is locked in a tie for fourth place with India Prime Minister Narendra Modi at 9%. Time worked with Opentopic and IBM's Watson to assemble the initial list for reader's votes, which also included Apple CEO Tim Cook and FBI director James Comey. Surprisingly, a few celebrities also turned up on the list too, including comedian Samantha Bee, Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Olympic gymnast Simone Biles.
Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by poll (Score:5, Interesting)
Not by an online poll at the very least.
This is a reader poll. It's a different thing and like any other internet poll it means very little.
Re:Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by po (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
TIME, aside from the usual Lib bias, has a bizarre sense of newsmakers. Last year, they made it Angela Merkel. In 2001, they made it Osama. They'll give it to anyone unless he happens to be a Republican achiever that year. From what I recall, President Bush never got it.
If the poll is being hacked, good for them! Ideally, it should be Trump, since he had been firing on all cylinders throughout the year, not just since the Dem convention. Wikileaks came into the picture only at the DNC convention, w
Re:Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by po (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll give it to anyone unless he happens to be a Republican achiever that year.
Achiever? I'm not sure you quite get what the "award" is for. Past "winners" include Hitler, Stalin, and even Henry Kissinger.
From what I recall, President Bush never got it.
HW got it, and W twice. You mean Jeb?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December.
Does not look like much of an achievement from here. Not that I think any other president would have succeeded in either invasion either. Give the award to GWH Bush for taking intelligent advice to contain and _not_ invade neighbouring Iraq.
The Taliban is alive and well, held back from Kabul only by an unsustainable flow of cash from the US to local warlords.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd probably argue that Trump would be the best candidate this year. If you look at the historical results, there's a pretty strong tendency for newly elected presidents to receive the award as everyone since H.W. Bush received the award the year of their election, and both George W. Bush and Obama recei
Re: (Score:2)
They don't give it to the person who "achieved" the most. They give it to the person they believe to be the most influential. That's why Osama Bin-Laden got it.
Re: (Score:2)
By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year. Like in 2001, when Osama got it for 9/11, Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December.
Actually, Rudolph Giuliani got it in 2001. Dubya the year before. Osama never did. Thanks for trying.
Oh BTW, the Taliban are still doing their thing. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
"By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year. Like in 2001, when Osama got it for 9/11, Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December. I do stand corrected on his getting it, though."
Fake news. Osama never got chosen. 2001 Man of the Year was Giuliani. W was man of the year twice, in 2000 and 2004, same number as Obama and Clinton (2-term presidents) and one more than Bush Sr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year#Perso
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Osama SHOULD have gotten it for 2001 -- no one else had such an affect on world affairs, certainly not Bush, and absolutely not the winner that year, Rudy Giuliani.
Re: (Score:3)
By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year"
The Time award is not for achievement but for the person or thing that has most influenced the news in a particular year. That, unquestionably, for this year is Donald Trump
Or Putin - he did influence the news about Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Nigel Farrage or the mad Brexiteers (Gove and Johnson). They were the first to prove that post-truth politics can work and adopted it for their winning campaigns. Trump is just a more bombastic imitation.
Re: (Score:2)
You have strong opinions about something you apparently no next to nothing about.
Osama never got it. Bush got it twice. At least you managed to get Merkel right. 1 out of 3 ain't bad I guess...
And you really don't think Bush, Bush, Bush, Gingrich, Giuliani, Nixon, Nixon, and Reagan were Republican?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering previous winners (Hitler) and the current roster of candidates, why don't they just call it Cunt of the Year?
IOW Trump.
Who could be happier? (Score:2)
For Assange, it literally might have been a life-or-death matter: she wanted to kill him (at least, that's how he perceived it). If anyone sponsored the email hacking, it was probably him.
Re: (Score:1)
Assange doesn't have the funds and probably also not the influence.
In any case, the whole "russians are hacking us" is mostly paranoia.
And furthermore (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange doesn't have the funds and probably also not the influence.
In any case, the whole "russians are hacking us" is mostly paranoia.
"Mostly" is being generous.
Assange took the unprecedented step to say specifically "it was not the Russians [rt.com]". He has stated that they never reveal their sources, so to go that far (eliminating Russia gives information about the actual source) he probably felt the fear-mongering was a prelude to a declaration of war, or at least minor hostility.
(And to be fair, it sure looked, at the time, that America was ginning up for a fight with Russia.)
And as for Clinton wanting to kill him, she specifically asked in a meeting "can't we just drone this guy [twitter.com]", apparently was not joking, and as a result of the meeting the aides sent her a list of "legal and non-legal strategies [dailymail.co.uk]" for dealing with assange.
But then again, this could be fake news. Hillary doesn't remember [politico.com] joking about Assange, and Snopes has the "drone strike" claim listed as "unproven".
(Note: The "legal and extra-legal" link is to a copy of the actual memo sent to Hillary.)
Re: (Score:2)
Was that on purpose? (Score:3)
RT? That's what you're using as a source? The state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia? The "news" organization who only says what Putin tells them?
I'd take the Fox tabloid over RT any day. At least Fox puts out something truthful once in a while.
I notice that you don't say the claim is wrong.
Was that on purpose?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
PBS's reputation is far better than RT's.
NBC is 'ok,' but has taken a number of self-inflicted hits, and they shoot themselves in the foot year after year.
CNN is circling the drain, and no one can figure out why it's still around, just like Radio Shack.
Re:And furthermore (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you focus on the messenger far too much and ignore the more obvious. What guarantee do we have that Assange is telling the truth or that he is capable of knowing that for a fact. Let's suppose he knows that the leaks came from party X who he has reason to believe isn't involved with the Russian government. He could be legitimately mistaken and Russia could ultimately be the source of the leaks pushed through enough independent channels to hide their involvement. Or it came directly from Russia and he's covering up that fact for his own reasons.
Unless you're also getting fed the kind of classified information that gives you a better idea of the shape of the world, all we can do is speculate. However, I think a better way to go about that is to look at what's happened since the election and what happens going forward. If we never see any additional email leaks related to Hillary or the DNC going forward it's pretty safe to assume that it was someone who really didn't want them to get elected and since that even has passed, they have no further interest. Even Trump who was heavily on the bandwagon to put Clinton in prison has done a bit of an about face on it. Whether he really ever wanted to or not is immaterial, it was just useful in helping him get votes. However, if over the next year we continue getting more and more leaks, it's probably safer to assume it isn't Russia (or if it really is that they'll try to act in a way as to make it appear less likely that it's them in which case we need more criteria that we don't post to the internet where they can read about it) and is just some hacker doing it because they can or to shake the ant farm a little bit for his or her own amusement.
Of course there's a whole host of other sources that aren't Russia and it's usually safer to play the field unless you can't legitimately think of anyone else who might have been involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the same story from USA Today [usatoday.com]. In case they're a state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia or some other government here's the same story from Fortune [fortune.com]. I'll leave it up to you to do a quick web search to find dozens of other sites reporting on the story. Even Fox has a version of the story and while they're a mouthpiece, it's not a state-sponsored Russian one.
I can show you hundreds of stories telling us that CNN aired 30 minutes of porn - and yet it hasn't happened. And just like those are all based on just one "fake news" tweet, your "other" sources are all based on that one exclusive RT interview.
Re:And furthermore (Score:5, Interesting)
yet oddly, that is exactly what people like you focused on. Not the story itself, but the source.
I'd prefer it if you didn't put political leanings in my mouth. I didn't vote for Trump (or Clinton for that matter) but once again you attack the messenger rather than the message. Also, if you're going to complain about the other side doing something (rightly or not) you probably shouldn't also do that thing yourself.
Also for what it's worth, you probably posted stories that confirm to your biases. It doesn't make you a bad person, actually it just makes you an ordinary person. You probably ignored factual stories that didn't support your preconceived notions or tried to find some reason to ignore them (like wrong messenger) so that your brain didn't have to consider information that conflicts with its existing choice.
Pretty much everyone (my own self included) does this, but it's not really helpful. It's the same reason why there are some people who wouldn't be convinced of climate change if their dear lord Jeebus himself descended from heaven and told them it was all true. I suspect you'd agree with me that those people are acting rather silly, so wouldn't it be better if we tried not to act like them?
If you get modded down its probably for going off-topic while essentially trying to rationalize why it's okay for you to attack the messenger, but not those other silly people. You even ended by creating a scenario in which you expect to use any perceived victimization as further proof that you're correct and everyone else is just out to get you. As far as that line of reasoning is concerned both a +5 and -1 moderation support your idea that you're correct. Seems like a rather flawed test does it not?
Re: (Score:2)
I really wanted both Clinton AND Trump to fade into obscurity. Eight months ago, I knew we were doomed.
Access requires sycophancy. (Score:2)
Time magazine, being mainstream American corporate media, would do well to give Trump the nod in order to try and get into his good graces and thus increase the odds of access. Paraphrasing CBS' Les Moonves who told the audience at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference [theintercept.com], such a move would not be good for America, but it could be very good for Time Magazine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time magazine, being mainstream American corporate media, would do well to give Trump the nod in order to try and get into his good graces and thus increase the odds of access.
You mean in the same way they made Hitler the Man Of The Year. Yeah, makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(at least, that's how he perceived it)
How else is he supposed to take someone saying 'can't we just drone him'?
Sarcastically? Ironically? Hyperbole? With a sense of humor?
Few sociopaths understand humor.
If the United States had held the moral high ground on assassination tactics outside of declared war, then yeah, maybe it could be taken as a joke. OTOH government agents have a differing duty when it comes to such important use of words. Even if Assange rationally accepted that it was 97% likely to be a joke, he might estimate that under that probability umbrella he might expected to be treated with all the respect that Manning has been given. In which case, same difference. I'd do to you what Hillary
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And what did Manning do to earn any respect from the US military and civil agencies? He should have tried to introduce his fragile mental health to bolster his defense.
And Assange has voluntarily put himself in prison for the last 4 years with no end in sight. If he ever enters a court room in Europe or the US he should definitely use his mental health as part of his defense. Assange and Manning are both the victims of their own stupidity. I guess this also applies to Snowden. Can anyone tell me why he did
Re: (Score:2)
"Can anyone tell me why [Snowden] did not go public until he was living in a country willing to shelter him?"
That's not true. He was in Hong Kong when he began sharing the documents with journalists. He didn't know if they would be willing to shelter him and as it turned out, they probably wouldn't have done so. He got out of there with the help of people from Wikileaks. Even then, there was no guarantee that Russia would shelter him. That's why he spent weeks in the Moscow airport before finally being
Trump has to be #1 (unless they hate him) (Score:3, Interesting)
Trump is always in the news either because of his own scandalous mouthing (or thumbing) off or because of his haters' constant hate and prejudices. He basically won the highest position on Earth by being in the news all the time.
With his "influence", he already killed the TPP as a side-effect of not yet taking office and he moved the powerful USD up and down for the past 6 months.
Maybe undisclosed "Russian hackers" can be runner up..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will be surprising if it isn't Trump. Clinton, Obama and Bush were all selected after they were first elected. Trump has been at least as newsworthy as them this year.
And imagine when the Electoral College elects somebody else...
BTW (Score:2)
Hitler was also named man of the year. It's not about who was the "best" person of the year just the most influential.
Re: (Score:2)
When Trump wins Man of the Year, expect that a bunch of idiots will equate the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah pretty much every president since WW2 has been named Person of the Year at least once.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, he does make the comparison pretty easy.
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, we know. You're still pining for Hillary, hate to break it to you but she lost. Maybe you can pine on Obama a bit more and his peace prize, and all the wars he's started.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you can pine on Obama a bit more and his peace prize, and all the wars he's started.
Eh? Obama has not started any wars... I get your point though, he has not exactly earned the peace prize. He changed nothing concerning America's war stance.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Obama has not started any wars...
Really? So he didn't launch weapons at Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. Gotcha. Those aren't wars, they're just lobbing of high-explosive munitions for the purposes of dirt farming.
Re: (Score:2)
When Trump wins Man of the Year, expect that a bunch of idiots will equate the two.
Some of his supporters already do. So yeah. Idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
Woah... Trump and Hitler mentioned in the same thread, and without being a Godwin. I looked back to see if that was true (it is), and as it turns out, Stalin was also person of the year. Twice, in fact: 1939 and 1942. Another historic note, from Wikipedia:
Since the list began, every serving President of the United States has been a Person of the Year at least once with the exceptions of Calvin Coolidge, in office at time of the first issue
Like or loathe him, it's hard to argue that Trump hasn't been one of the most influential people of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Doh. I didn't copy the entire Wikipedia quote. Here's the rest:
... Herbert Hoover, the next U.S. president, and Gerald Ford.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way? The only thing I can think of is blowing an extraordinary amount of hot air. Extraordinary is in italics because he's US politician in an election year, so a very high bar has been set by his co-competitors in the hot air stakes. Yet he didn't get just beat them. He clobbered them so hrd they still don't know quite what happened. It was an amazing performance. It's what got him elec
Re: (Score:2)
He's done nothing beyond telling us what he is going to do.
As opposed to Obama, who won a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected?
US Presidents, or even US President-elects are, almost by definition, extremely influential people. I'd say that this campaign has been unlike any I've ever seen, between two of the most polarizing candidates I could imagine, and the *most* polarizing candidate actually won, despite the incredible amount of baggage he had.
By the way, Hillary certainly would have properly been Person of the Year had she been elected. I think it's mor
Re: (Score:2)
"man" because this "person" crap is another piece of unnecessary PC
No it isn't. If you're awarding a 'man of the year' award, doesn't it sound strange to give it to a woman? Isn't that because the word man, means male? What's wrong with wanting to name an award that's open equally to men and women, without resorting to calling it "man or woman of the year"?
Re: (Score:2)
"man" because this "person" crap is another piece of unnecessary PC
No it isn't. If you're awarding a 'man of the year' award, doesn't it sound strange to give it to a woman? Isn't that because the word man, means male? What's wrong with wanting to name an award that's open equally to men and women, without resorting to calling it "man or woman of the year"?
And that's ignoring the winner of 1982. Spoiler: The Computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was also named man of the year. It's not about who was the "best" person of the year just the most influential.
Yeah, but Time went all P.C. several years ago with their sections. Note that Rudolph Giuliani, mayor of NYC, was named Person of the year in 2001 because of the WTC attacks, when obviously Bin Laden himself was more influential.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if that's PC, or just self preservation. I think that if Time had named Bin Laden as person of the year, they would have had their offices firebombed. More than once.
Better choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Nigel Farage
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He will only accept if he gets paid in currency other than sterling.
the rural/suburban white male (Score:2)
That would cover Brexit and Trump winning the US election.
You could say the "working white male" if you want to try to avoid some hot wires.
I propose (Score:3)
Also everyone should come to my apartment to see my cats.
Big whoop (Score:3, Funny)
Big whoop, I was Time's Person of the Year 2006. Didn't mean a thing.
Was about to mod +1 funny when I read... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%),
Then realized it was part of the summary, so probably not a joke.
The editors in Slashdot are really pushing on the (Russian) state actors hacking tale. Why would state actors act on Times' online poll? If they did, why would they put up these results?
Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them [dailydot.com], the magazine just discarded the results.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you give 4chan a bit too much credit there at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter what country the bored young adults doing this are from. I highly doubt fucking with a useless online poll is on the radar for Russian state actors. If anything it's people who would like you to think it's Russian state actors because they'd find it more amusing that way or independent hackers from Russia that are just tryin
Re: (Score:2)
Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them, the magazine just discarded the results.
No, no it wasn't. Typical garbage coming out of a clickbait site. Time records votes by cookie, delete the cookie and you can vote again. Some online polls have gotten better requiring more then that like tying to a IP for X number of hours. What the fuck has happened to /. when people can't tell the difference between actual hacks, and simple reset/deletion/temporary-allow scripts that you can write in greasemonkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them, the magazine just discarded the results.
No, no it wasn't. Typical garbage coming out of a clickbait site. Time records votes by cookie, delete the cookie and you can vote again. Some online polls have gotten better requiring more then that like tying to a IP for X number of hours. What the fuck has happened to /. when people can't tell the difference between actual hacks, and simple reset/deletion/temporary-allow scripts that you can write in greasemonkey.
Irony: Stop them if they're wrong, but be damned sure they're wrong. If you're going around the original intent and repurposing a thing to your ends instead of the original ones, you're hacking. What they didn't do was crack the poll or hack into the poll. But they most certainly did hack the poll.
no to bogus votes (Score:2)
People (Score:2)
Why don't they do something radical. Make the person of the year a group of people.
Or even better, make it the readers!
Or something that isn't a person at all. Like an internet server or something. Genius!
Re: (Score:2)
This year, it could be "The Protectionist Voter" -- which covers both Brexit and election of Trump.
More fake news (Score:2)
The story says it's a poll of online READERS.
I find it hard to believe that Time still has readers.
Re: (Score:2)
Generalissimo Francisco Franco (Score:2)
Audio is not enough for proof of life (Score:5, Insightful)
The Assange/Wikileaks situation has been a bit weird for the past month, and no strong proof of life has been shown. Going with an audio interview is just going to fuel all the conspiracy nuts in /r/WhereIsAssange [reddit.com].
IMO, it should be Donald Trump (Score:2)
I dislike him intensely and I think he's a horrible person, but most of us (I believe anyway) didn't think he would win and yet he did.
Like him or not, disagree with the electoral college or not, he will be the next President.
I'm not even sure what Modi has done this year to even be in the running (screwed up their current bank note fiasco?)
Putin, May and Fatty Kim haven't done anything nearly as impressive or shocking as what trump has done - again, just my opinion of course.
If Brexit were a person eligibl
Re: (Score:3)
"Appearance" (Score:3, Informative)
If you mean shitty audio and uncharacteristic commentary, then yeah, "he" made and "appearance".
He has not been seen alive with any evidence since Oct 20th, period end of story.
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean shitty audio and uncharacteristic commentary, then yeah, "he" made and "appearance".
He has not been seen alive with any evidence since Oct 20th, period end of story.
That was when he hit the boom gate with the sign "MAX. HEADROOM: 2.3 M"
Deja Vu - Time ignored the popular vote last time (Score:2)
Bots for the, bots for me. (Score:2)
So trump making it the list is a genuine act of voting but Putin making the list is 'state agents'?
Re: (Score:2)
So trump making it the list is a genuine act of voting but Putin making the list is 'state agents'?
It's rigged! The whole election is rigged!
Er, wait
Alternative hypothesis (Score:2)
Perhaps Putin is doing well in the polls not because his mythical hackers are doing it, but because we are still in the middle of an 18-month, 10+ billion dollar propaganda campaign that hoped first to prevent a Trump win, and, that having failed, is now spreading the idea that his win was not because of his populist/nationalist message, but the result of Russian hackers.
If half of the country genuinely believes that Trump's victory was the result of Russian interference, is it surprising really that Putin
Re: (Score:2)
Time's Person of Year is not a popularity contest (Score:2)
In that respect, Julian Assange is a braindead choice. He goes i
Re: (Score:2)
For the last 20 years just winning the US Presidential election was enough to get it. There have only been 4 occassions since 1964 that the newly elected President wasn't given it, and on all of those occasions that person got it the year before or during that term...
Re: (Score:2)
For the last 20 years just winning the US Presidential election was enough to get it. There have only been 4 occassions since 1964 that the newly elected President wasn't given it, and on all of those occasions that person got it the year before or during that term... It is an American publication after all.
Well, they certainly will name Trump POTY next year, after his assassination by one of his disappointed voters because he ran America into the ground again.
Re: (Score:2)
Theresa May is an attempt to give credit/blame for the Brexit vote to a single individual
Hardly, she was on the losing side. She just didn't campaign strongly enough to alienate leavers.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Perhaps Time know something we don't...
It's all rigged... (Score:2)
Ugh (Score:2)
While I don't think Assange is a criminal or should be thrown in prison, by many accounts a slimeball, so hopefully not person of the year.
If anyone it should Snowden. Though I see in looking at the list the "Whistleblowers" won in 2002 so perhaps they think that might be a duplication.
I'd not be surprised if it is Trump. Certainly the most newsworthy of 2016 anyway, won when no one apparently thought he would.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.
No one paid any attention to those emails.
This election was a blindside by poll-shy [theguardian.com] angry, bored, under-educated white women.
Re: All Republicans and Trump backers (Score:3, Informative)
College educated quite women were a tremendous help in getting Trump elected as well. While they were more likely to vote for Clinton, her advantage over Trump was only 6 points - 51 to 45.
Re: (Score:3)
I know quite a few women (northern AZ) who voted for Donald of Orange, and overwhelmingly they were local business owners - the same demographic who have historically supported previous Republicans.
As to the point of your Grauniad article, once Democrats allowed their own base minorities to be as viciously anti-white as they wanted, it nullified the whole racism/sexism issue for the rest of the voters. The thinking around here was, "They don't care? Then neither do we!"
Re: (Score:2)
Arizona was not a swing state.
RTFL I gave you.
Re: (Score:2)
Arizona was not a swing state.
Give us a pitcher of margaritas, and you'd be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
I know quite a few women (northern AZ) who voted for Donald of Orange, and overwhelmingly they were local business owners - the same demographic who have historically supported previous Republicans.
Which is quite hilarious, as A) he was running as a non-"previous" Republican, and B) in his business life always acted hostile towards local business owners. But hey - once you find one "good" reason to vote Trump, you can ignore all the bad ones, because sooooo huge.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, this isn't 1938, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
"Person of the Year" isn't "Best ..." (Score:2)
Thanks TIME ... for lowering the bar even further, human garbage all over the world can now realistically aspire to be your man of the year.
Time's "Person of the Year" isn't "BEST Person of the Year". It's "MOST INFLUENTIAL ON THE WORLD Person of the Year". That's why people like Castro get it.
Time has pointed this out LOTS of times.
IMHO Assange is a good candidate for THIS year. Trump did a lot of shaking things up, too - but mainly by being elected. As with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, it's a bit early.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO Assange is a good candidate for THIS year.
Why? He only played a minor part in this whole Clinton Email Kerfuffle.