Tonight I'm gonna draw hitler mustaches on German election posters

gwaha that's awesome! and i mean, thank god Hitler destroyed a really stupid-looking fashion. it would have sucked if he had ruined sneakers or black hair or something.
 
Minister denies Bush 'Hitler' slur
Friday, September 20, 2002 Posted: 11:55 AM EDT (1555 GMT)

Daeubler-Gmelin has denied making the remarks

BERLIN, Germany -- Germany's justice minister has denied comparing U.S. President George W. Bush to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

Herta Daeubler-Gmelin blamed "erroneous and inflammatory" newspaper reports for the scandal which has dominated the last day of campaigning ahead of German national elections on Sunday.

She is alleged to have told a meeting of unionists that Bush was going after Iraq's Saddam Hussein to divert attention from domestic problems, adding: "That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that."

But at a news conference on Friday, Daeubler-Gmelin said: "It was terrible to say I had compared a democratically elected president with Hitler."



Wasn't Hitler democratically elected? Moreso than Bush, I daresay.
 
Well, of course! Anytime a German says anything negative about another country or person or piece of food, you can always retort with, "Dude, you guys elected HITLER, I don't think what you say counts for very much!" And the best part is THEY HAVE TO HANG THEIR HEADS AND MUMBLE "Yes, I know, you're right" AND LET YOU WIN! I love hanging out with Germans, because it's Hitler guilt left, right, and center.

("Hey, buy me a drink..." "Nein!" "Dude. HITLER." "Ah, jah, un Weissbier!")

If Hitler really loved the Germans so much, he shouldn't have set things up so they'd be these scapegoats of evil for decades and decades after his death.
 
Bush II isn't even our tenth worse President :) Yet, anyway.

In fact--and I know this isn't saying much--he's one of our best Presidents in decades. Look at his company:

Clinton (war criminal: murdered Sudanese janitors, ended welfare, pretended to be a liberal),

Bush I (war criminal: abandoned Iraqi Kurds to genocide, former head of the CIA),

Reagan (domestic criminal: denied existence of AIDS, encouraged drug war, destroyed urban centers),

Carter (aided Castro's regime of torture and murder to ensure U.S. security; aided Arafat's regime of torture and murder for no real reason whatsoever)...etc.

Ford (OK, Ford was blah, not especially evil, but he DID pardon--)

Nixon (do I need to explain?)

story.herta.ap.jpg
 
Gore winning the popular vote doesn't matter for shit, and I think that's how it should be. The electoral system protects us more than it hurts us.

What does matter is that more people went to the polls in Florida intending to vote for Gore then went for Bush. Meaning Gore won the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. And that's what counts.
 
Thank you Alex! I'm sick hearing people complain about how Gore "won-the-popular-vote-and-should-therefore-be-president". Definitely a "Wait...Bush won? Shit, the electoral college system is fucked!" kinda thing I can't agree with.

By the way, Alex, I have heard good arguments for the EC, but would like to hear yours as well.

The primary one I've heard is: the EC benefits localities with low voter turnout, usually due to poverty, etc. by giving them full representation of their population.
 
I was actually initially anti-EC because part of the logic of its founding: to give slaveholding states a greater voice than non-slaveholders. But just because something was founded with bad intentions doesn't mean it can't be used for good, and that's what has been done with the EC (and things like penicillin, which were invented to help countries make war).

That is the primary reason. Also, it makes each individual's vote more valuable, because your vote is 1 out of your state's population, not 1 out of the entire 280 million's, and your individual vote is therefore much more likely to swing the course of the election, as happened in Florida (that's how they measure voter power, by the chance of your vote mattering).

The funny thing about Florida in 2000 is that, legally, I've come to think that maybe Bush did win, even though Gore got more votes. I read a piece written from Gore's side which described the legal meanderings...Gore would have triumphed legally if he had only not been a greedy fuck right when the election ended.

The problem is that Gore did not initially file to "have every vote count", like he said he did (and like I think he morally should have). He filed to have every vote recounted in areas he viewed as favourable to him. His campaign misgauged a little, and Bush pounced on the fact that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state, and there were delays, and ultimately the Court's judgment rested on the matter of time.

Had Gore done the right thing--counting every vote in Florida from the beginning--the court wouldn't have been able to cite expediency, and he probably would've won the election no matter what Bush's team schemed. He was greedy and cowardly and, therefore, he lost. Karma, or divine punishment, I guess, although I don't know who's being punished more: Gore by losing, or us by having Bush as a prez.

Florida voted for Gore, and Gore's dishonest tactics threw the state to Bush. Lame.
 
Ah, also...without an Electoral College, a presidential candidate could win a race by focusing on the top five or ten states (where the masses of population reside) exclusively. I think ignoring forty of the fifty states (in fact, you could actively hurt them, by promising the big states you'll take funds away from the little ones for the bigger votes...) is very un-democratic. You might win 51% of the popular vote, but if it's the entirety of the population of New York City who voted for you and every single other person who voted against you...no.