Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

[teuchter]

... and, in the case of Trump, be a self-promoting arse.

Having that useless sack of flob as person of the year somewhat cheapens the entire concept.

On the contrary it appears that you don't understand the entire concept.

 

[krtek a houby]

On the contrary it appears that you don't understand the entire concept.

One of the few times will agree with you.

 

[Rompipalle]

On the contrary it appears that you don't understand the entire concept.

Oh yes I do. I also understand that the best thing to do in relation to Trump is to deny him what he always craves.

Constant attention.

He doesn't care whether it's positive or negative - he just wants it, regardless.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Oh yes I do. I also understand that the best thing to do in relation to Trump is to deny him what he always craves.

Constant attention.

He doesn't care whether it's positive or negative - he just wants it, regardless.

Unfortunately it's not really possible to deny the President of the US attention though is it.

 

[Rompipalle]

Unfortunately it's not really possible to deny the President of the US attention though is it.

No need to add to it gratuitously though.

His narcissism is off the bloody scale as it is, so making him feel even more significant is just feeding it further.

My policy is always to deprive chronic attention-seekers of what they crave - particularly anything that enhances their own misguided impression of their personal worth. In the case of an arse like Trump, there's nothing positive that can be said about him anyway. He's just an usightly stain on the backside of humanity.

 

[klang]

the case of an arse like Trump, there's nothing positive that can be said about him anyway.

His signature is pretty cool.

 

[krtek a houby]

No need to add to it gratuitously though.

His narcissism is off the bloody scale as it is, so making him feel even more significant is just feeding it further.

My policy is always to deprive chronic attention-seekers of what they crave - particularly anything that enhances their own misguided impression of their personal worth. In the case of an arse like Trump, there's nothing positive that can be said about him anyway. He's just an usightly stain on the backside of humanity.

An unsightly stain that tragically has a huge influence on the rest of the world

 

[moochedit]

Do wonder if he's aware that both Hitler and Stalin received the same "accolade",?

He probably sees them as "great strong leaders/alpha males/etc" so is fine with that.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

He probably sees them as "great strong leaders/alpha males/etc" so is fine with that.

'Good people on both sides'

 

[breadandcircuse]

Do wonder if he's aware that both Hitler and Stalin received the same "accolade",?

He'd love that, up there with other dictators.

Didn't he try and sue them previously when he thought he should have got it and didn't, or am I mixing that up with one of his many other stupid lawsuits? I think he whinged and whined about some others that got it, when they were perceived as "his enemies".

It's just the media continuing to bow down to him, probably for fear of what he is going to do to them if they don't. Just look at Scarborough. His back pedalling to the monster is about to be his downfall though. The speculation is that he and Mika were terrified now he is in power, but their craven backsliding has resulted in a massive backlash from viewers who have deserted the channel, and I would think their show is done for. I fully expect Scarborough to pop up in his cabinet soon, completing the 180 from critic to sycophant.

 

[tim]

Unfortunately it's not really possible to deny the President of the US attention though is it.

Au contraire he is Tinkabell

 

[teuchter]

My policy is always to deprive chronic attention-seekers of what they crave - particularly anything that enhances their own misguided impression of their personal worth.

I trust you have written a stern letter to the editors of Time Magazine demanding that they align their policy with yours.

 

[teuchter]

It's just the media continuing to bow down to him, probably for fear of what he is going to do to them if they don't.

Have you actually bothered to look at any of what Time have written in association with choosing him as "Person of the year"?

 

[Rompipalle]

I trust you have written a stern letter to the editors of Time Magazine demanding that they align their policy with yours.

Now, why would I do that?

That would be a rather silly thing to do and I'm surprised at you for even thinking of it.

My policy on how to deal with useless, narcissistic arseholes like Trump is based upon my own opinion. I don't need validation from anyone else.

If the editorial team at Time want to plaster their cover with that slow-witted, narcissistic sociopath, that's up to them. It doesn't mean that I can't HAVE an alternative opinion, does it?

 

[breadandcircuse]

Have you actually bothered to look at any of what Time have written in association with choosing him as "Person of the year"?

What's your problem with people finding this latest piece of shit abhorrent?

I don't give a flying fuck what they're saying about the cunt. Anyone with half a brain knows what is going on.

 

[HeAthen]

What's your problem with people finding this latest piece of shit abhorrent?

I don't give a flying fuck what they're saying about the cunt. Anyone with half a brain knows what is going on.

I'm sure that's a question the twat is asked on a very regular basis.

 

[VivaE]

He probably sees them as "great strong leaders/alpha males/etc" so is fine with that.

There are certainly indications that he's dipped into Hitler's playbook -

The reich stuff – what does Trump really have in common with Hitler?

Comparisons between the ex-president and the 20th-century Nazi leader are controversial but a new book says they resemble each other as political performance artists

www.theguardian.com

 

[teuchter]

What's your problem with people finding this latest piece of shit abhorrent?

I don't give a flying fuck what they're saying about the cunt. Anyone with half a brain knows what is going on.

It's rather straightforward - you complained that the Time article amounts to "bowing down" to Trump.

But I gave you a link to a piece that Time have written where they fact-check everything that Trump tells them in his interview, and this demonstrates that almost everything he said is nonsense.

To me, if a major platform gives prominence to an interview with someone, and then lays out all the ways that someone made up nonsense during that interview, this doesn't really amount to "bowing down" to them. Or being fearful of what will happen if they don't.

My guess is that you made an erroneous and hasty assumption that Time naming someone as a "person of the year" amounts to an endorsement of them.

 

[Yossarian]

All the stuff about there being a shortlist for Person of the Year etc. seems like largely clickbait - the winner of the presidential election has been named Time's Person of the Year every US election year in the last 32 years, apart from 1996, Time doesn't seem like the kind of publication that would invite a backlash by breaking with tradition this time around

 

[maomao]

Hitler was Time Man of the Year the year before ww2 started.

 

[breadandcircuse]

It's rather straightforward - you complained that the Time article amounts to "bowing down" to Trump.

But I gave you a link to a piece that Time have written where they fact-check everything that Trump tells them in his interview, and this demonstrates that almost everything he said is nonsense.

To me, if a major platform gives prominence to an interview with someone, and then lays out all the ways that someone made up nonsense during that interview, this doesn't really amount to "bowing down" to them. Or being fearful of what will happen if they don't.

My guess is that you made an erroneous and hasty assumption that Time naming someone as a "person of the year" amounts to an endorsement of them.

I can see that they fact checked him, which is good. But it means next to nothing when they are giving the monster exactly what he wants, the Person of the Year bullshit. They could have had some courage and not done that. This is what I mean by bowing down to the orange bastard.

I just watched a piece from Farron Cousins about this, and he is applauding the fact check. However, to me it negates any honour, by calling his lies out, by rewarding him with exactly what he wanted. As said, the creature probably didn't even look at that. All he sees is that he is the person of the year.

Here is Farron's take for those who want to see it. Farron does short pieces, so no moaning about the length or content.

Spoiler

 

[VivaE]

It's rather straightforward - you complained that the Time article amounts to "bowing down" to Trump.

But I gave you a link to a piece that Time have written where they fact-check everything that Trump tells them in his interview, and this demonstrates that almost everything he said is nonsense.

To me, if a major platform gives prominence to an interview with someone, and then lays out all the ways that someone made up nonsense during that interview, this doesn't really amount to "bowing down" to them. Or being fearful of what will happen if they don't.

My guess is that you made an erroneous and hasty assumption that Time naming someone as a "person of the year" amounts to an endorsement of them.

Choosing trump as Time's 'Person of the Year' is fine and true to Time's "for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months" remit, but I despise their sycophantic decision to use such a filled-with-ridiculously-flattering-lies pic of him for the cover. So for all their fine fact-checking talk, they nevertheless did pathetically and self-servingly creep and crawl to him in the 'endorsement' sense.

Fake News V Real news

 

[Rompipalle]

It's rather straightforward - you complained that the Time article amounts to "bowing down" to Trump.

But I gave you a link to a piece that Time have written where they fact-check everything that Trump tells them in his interview, and this demonstrates that almost everything he said is nonsense.

To me, if a major platform gives prominence to an interview with someone, and then lays out all the ways that someone made up nonsense during that interview, this doesn't really amount to "bowing down" to them. Or being fearful of what will happen if they don't.

My guess is that you made an erroneous and hasty assumption that Time naming someone as a "person of the year" amounts to an endorsement of them.

Time would only have themselves to blame for any such misapprehensions.

The very sight of that lumbering sack of shite on their cover would be enough to disincline most sensible people from reading anything inside the publication. Perhaps, he should have been identified instead as “Utter Bellend of the Year” in order not to render a misleading impression.

 

[Rompipalle]

I can see that they fact checked him, which is good. But it means next to nothing when they are giving the monster exactly what he wants, the Person of the Year bullshit. They could have had some courage and not done that. This is what I mean by bowing down to the orange bastard.

I just watched a piece from Farron Cousins about this, and he is applauding the fact check. However, to me it negates any honour, by calling his lies out, by rewarding him with exactly what he wanted. As said, the creature probably didn't even look at that. All he sees is that he is the person of the year.

Here is Farron's take for those who want to see it. Farron does short pieces, so no moaning about the length or content.

Spoiler

Trump would only be interested in the perceived kudos of being thus named. He would completely ignore anything in the publication which turned out to be unflattering or which does not suck up to him bigly.

 

[HeAthen]

I can see that they fact checked him, which is good. But it means next to nothing when they are giving the monster exactly what he wants, the Person of the Year bullshit. They could have had some courage and not done that. This is what I mean by bowing down to the orange bastard.

I just watched a piece from Farron Cousins about this, and he is applauding the fact check. However, to me it negates any honour, by calling his lies out, by rewarding him with exactly what he wanted. As said, the creature probably didn't even look at that. All he sees is that he is the person of the year.

Here is Farron's take for those who want to see it. Farron does short pieces, so no moaning about the length or content.

Spoiler

And of course, people will remember the turd being named Person of the Year again and not that Time fact checked him.

 

[breadandcircuse]

And of course, people will remember the turd being named Person of the Year again and not that Time fact checked him.

Exactly. His cult will not be reading the fact check. As someone pointed out online, if you have to do a fact check like this, then it's obvious that person should not be heralded as the person of the year. Oh, and apparently the CEO is a Trump supporter.

 

[teuchter]

I don't give a flying fuck what they're saying about the cunt.

Your subsequent posts seem to confirm that this statement is untrue.

 

[Rompipalle]

Choosing trump as Time's 'Person of the Year' is fine and true to Time's "for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months" remit, but I despise their sycophantic decision to use such a filled-with-ridiculously-flattering-lies pic of him for the cover. So for all their fine fact-checking talk, they nevertheless did pathetically and self-servingly creep and crawl to him in the 'endorsement' sense.

Fake News V Real news

View attachment 455213 View attachment 455216

There are any number of more accurate depictions of the Mango Mussolini out there… Time could have used one of those instead, with appropriate photo credit, of course.

The subsequent fallout from Diaper Don would have been well worth it… if you’ll pardon the expression.

 

[breadandcircuse]

There are any number of more accurate depictions of the Mango Mussolini out there… Time could have used one of those instead, with appropriate photo credit, of course.

The subsequent fallout from Diaper Don would have been well worth it… if you’ll pardon the expression.

View attachment 455222

View attachment 455223

View attachment 455225

He really is a fucking moron. How anyone could find that orange thing attractive enough to marry is beyond me, but then again, I suppose his looks weren't the attraction. I think he's filling his diaper in the middle one.

 

[teuchter]

So we are happily going down the route of making fun of people based on their appearance now?