TIME Magazine names Donald Trump "Person of the Year"

So at the end of the year for apparently 90 years straight, TIME Magazine likes to do a special article/issue on who they feel was the "most influential" person that year, and for 2016 they've chosen US President-elect Donald Trump.

Surprising? Not surprising? Do you agree with their choice, or do you think someone else should've been selected?

article

alex i'm sorry that half the threads are about trump but gotta post shit

Not surprising at all, and I honestly think he deserves it more than anybody else. Everybody all over the world is talking about him, so.

Well, his election and cabinet choices have started making a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum rethink the way they do things. Liberals need to start actually debating their message of inclusiveness again and stop throwing buzzwords around to shut down opposing views, while conservatives are starting to realize that their general philosophy of "being terrible people towards everyone except rich white males" is starting to make their party look bad.

On that note, I think it was a mistake to not name Osama Bin Laden "Person of the Year" for similar reasons. His actions undoubtedly changed the way the American government and much of the Western world thought about security and that little problem of "respecting people's natural rights" out of some misplaced fear that the terrorists will conquer the world. Who knows what life would be like today if 9/11 never happened? He made the world immeasurably worse for everyone, including the Middle East's chances at pan-arabic multiculturalism. I think that kind of world-changing deserves recognition.

I'm half-joking about all of this, by the way. Fuck the both of them.

If TIME had gone with anyone else, it would have been muuuuuuch more notable. Even if he'd lost the election, he's had much more of an impact this year than anyone else.

CarcharOdin said:

Well, his election has started making a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum rethink the way they do things. Liberals need to start actually debating their message of inclusiveness again and stop throwing buzzwords around to shut down opposing views, while conservatives are starting to realize that their general philosophy of "being terrible people towards everyone except rich white males" is starting to make their party look bad.

On that note, I think it was a mistake to not name Osama Bin Laden "Person of the Year" for similar reasons. His actions undoubtedly changed the way the American government and much of the Western world thought about security and that little problem of "respecting people's natural rights" out of some misplaced fear that the terrorists will conquer the world. Who knows what life would be like today if 9/11 never happened? He made the world immeasurably worse for everyone, including the Middle East's chances at pan-arabic multiculturalism. I think that kind of world-changing deserves recognition.

I'm half-joking about all of this, by the way. Fuck the both of them.

Click to expand...

I mean, it's for similar reasons to the ones you list for Bin Laden that Hitler was once named person of the year. If you read the article on Hitler, it's actually pretty critical of him, and their reasoning for choosing Hitler back in 1939 was this: "Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today".

Though it's worth noting that Bin Laden had consistently been doing the things that made him notorious long before 2001, his actions just simply hadn't impacted the US until that point. Hitler, on the other hand, was ramping up what he was doing in 1938.

Honestly, I'm not surprised he's the new "Person of the Year", because Time Magazine has always had a bias to picking who it is when it comes to election years, since if it's an election year like this year was, 9 times out of 10 it's going to be whoever the president elect is. George W. Bush was POTY both times he was elected (2000 and 2004), and so was Obama both times he was elected (2008 and 2012), so to no surprise that Donald Trump would get the title this year, and if he is to be elected a second term, he'll be POTY a second time, and if not, it will be whoever the other candidate is if they win.

Of course, If Hillary Clinton won, you'd be seeing her on the magazine instead, if Gary Johnson won, you'd be seeing him, and so forth, so regardless of who won the election, be it Trump or Clinton, you'd be seeing whoever won the election this year, because if Trump was to lose, I'd doubt he'd be on the cover, but regardless, I doubt it would be anyone else that isn't a US politician.

Liberal media outlets on damage control comparing him to hitler once more.

Well, yeah, by their criteria he was without a doubt the winner. Dunno how this is remotely surprising.

for a sec i thought this was a joke thread in the Treehouse

I just dont understand what he did that makes him person of the year. in my opinion, being president-elect doesnt really qualify you for person of the year. You have to do something good and beneficial. and he hasn't had the opportunity to do so in office.

BadSheep said:

for a sec i thought this was a joke thread in the Treehouse

I just dont understand what he did that makes him person of the year. in my opinion, being president-elect doesnt really qualify you for person of the year. You have to do something good and beneficial. and he hasn't had the opportunity to do so in office.

Click to expand...

TIME's Person of the Year isn't, by definition, a positive acclamation of a person's character. It is simply an evaluation of their unparalleled impact on the year soon to end. It's not supposed to sit on the good/evil dichotomy, or reward goodness or denigrate evil. But 'Person of the Year' is by and large a positive acclamation in most contexts, and TIME's example is backed up by how 'good people' tend to win. It tends to be a celebration of a person's, or entity's, crowning achievement of making the world better. But going by TIME's nearly century old stipulations on the designation, I agree with Trump winning.

But you raise an interesting example of the Person of the Year needing to be doing good. By definition, Osama bin Laden would have been designated Person of the Year in 2001. But they gave it to Rudy Giuliani (and to an extent, America) instead, a clear-cut editorial decision to make it about triumph over evil rather than the person who attacked them. They deviated from their typically stringent categorisation to make a point. Just interesting to think about.

I'm not all to surprised really. Either or candidate split nearly everyone down the middle. As time goes on though, I must say I'm rather relived Clinton didn't win. That is to say, that I'm not the most thrilled person on the planet between both candidates themselves.

Frieza said:

TIME's Person of the Year isn't, by definition, a positive acclamation of a person's character. It is simply an evaluation of their unparalleled impact on the year soon to end. It's not supposed to sit on the good/evil dichotomy, or reward goodness or denigrate evil. But 'Person of the Year' is by and large a positive acclamation in most contexts, and TIME's example is backed up by how 'good people' tend to win. It tends to be a celebration of a person's, or entity's, crowning achievement of making the world better. But going by TIME's nearly century old stipulations on the designation, I agree with Trump winning.

But you raise an interesting example of the Person of the Year needing to be doing good. By definition, Osama bin Laden would have been designated Person of the Year in 2001. But they gave it to Rudy Giuliani (and to an extent, America) instead, a clear-cut editorial decision to make it about triumph over evil rather than the person who attacked them. They deviated from their typically stringent categorisation to make a point. Just interesting to think about.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information regarding Person of the Year. Now we have more information to make informed decisions about this topic. All in all, thanks for the research. :)

I know this doesn't really add anything to the discussion, but it needs to be brought up anyway.

I'm freaking dying right now

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-doesnt-seem-like-person-year-label/95260548/

Trumps wants to be called Man of the Year instead of Person of the Year

this is too funny

I do actually prefer "Man of the Year"

I find it hard to call him a "Person."

are you fucking kidding me he does not deserve this at all??? he's a racist, homophobic, xenophobic orange cheeto who doesn't deserve this. at all. god this makes me so angry that they actually did this

edit: my sister told me they do this if someone has an effect on the world whether it be good or bad..i'll go out on a fucking limb here and say that he had a bad effect :^)

still usually i think of positive people when i hear person of the year. ah well. trump doesn't count as a person for me so ?\_(?)_/?

Whoever won President was going to get it and neither one of them remotely deserved it.

Hands said:

Whoever won President was going to get it and neither one of them remotely deserved it.

Click to expand...

Pretty much my sentiments. Although I'm relieved Hillary didn't win doesn't mean I'm exactly filled with joy.

JDJacket said:

Pretty much my sentiments. Although I'm relieved Hillary didn't win doesn't mean I'm exactly filled with joy.

Click to expand...

Yeah I'd of absolutely rather they gave it to someone with a humanitarian background or to somebody like Akon who has stepped away from music and has instead been providing electricity to millions of Africans via Solar power. Trump and Clinton are both unremarkable and iffy people who really should of been nowhere near as relevant this year as they were.

Hands said:

Yeah I'd of absolutely rather they gave it to someone with a humanitarian background or to somebody like Akon who has stepped away from music and has instead been providing electricity to millions of Africans via Solar power. Trump and Clinton are both unremarkable and iffy people who really should of been nowhere near as relevant this year as they were.

Click to expand...

True enough. But it seems . . . perfunctory and traditional to name the President of the United States as Person of the Year. I can't recall when that wasn't the case, really.