NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say you are in a nation where voting is compulsory. The three candidates are Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and the Devil Himself. Who would you vote for?
praise cheesus!
Muhahahahah... this should be interesting....

The Devil. He has the best sense of humor. :)

Stalin...

Um...

No... The devil... Because it would be interesting to meet him...(?)

What about the political reasons?

bump

What about the political reasons?

Politics? Bah!

Hitler. Say I was living then. Hitler had far better speaking ability and charisma(sp) than Josef Stalin. I whould say no to Satan because, well. he whould never get elected :P.

The Devil. Why fuck around? Elect someone who can really shake things up.

Either Hitler or Stalin, simply because they can be killed.

hitler d000h :)

Let's say you are in a nation where voting is compulsory. The three candidates are Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and the Devil Himself. Who would you vote for?
praise cheesus!
Muhahahahah... this should be interesting....
I'm not a racist, but I had to pick Hitler, because he's the only Christian out of all three.

I'm not a racist, but I had to pick Hitler, because he's the only Christian out of all three.
:rolleyes:

Hitler hands down.

Wouldn't call Hitler a Christian. At all.

However, I'd vote for him. Out of the two human beings, he's the only one that can successfully run a country and is the lesser of all evils presented for the vote.

I'm not a racist, but I had to pick Hitler, because he's the only Christian out of all three.
O.o.

I love it when people preface their statement with "I'm not a racist, but", because you know they are going to say something racist. <3.

satan would be the most fun. i think, somehow, he actually ends up being the least egoamniacal out of the three.

saTAN

Adolf-Antigay, antisemetic
Stalin-Antigay, antisemetic, antiRussian, antiLeninist, antiNonStalin
Devil-Gay, antieverything

Well i would choose the fourth canidate, my pet Commador Poodles.
Adolf is next since he killed 1/2 of stalin
then stalin for he killed less then 1/100 of satan

O.o.

I love it when people preface their statement with "I'm not a racist, but", because you know they are going to say something racist. <3.

I love it when people automaticly assume someone is racist. :p

Such a state is improbable beyond the point of the question having any point. All the options are unfavorable. I refuse to choose one.

I will say that Hitler treated people that he didn't consider degenerates or sub-human fairly well. He certainly didn't think that all his people were cattle like Stalin did. Since I'm of German heritage he'd be the most logical choice if I did choose one (and I won't). No one knows what the Devil does to his subjects so I won't comment on him.

Wouldn't call Hitler a Christian. At all.

However, I'd vote for him. Out of the two human beings, he's the only one that can successfully run a country and is the lesser of all evils presented for the vote.

There are forms of Christianity where they believe in a superior race.

I should know, I belong to one. (Christian Identity).

Oh and I would pick Hitler, because I heil him every day.

-14/88

*Here is a link proving Hitler's Christianity. http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

We forgot one more person.

Mussolini. :O.

We forgot one more person.

Mussolini. :O.

He wasn't that bad.

I'm gonna be the Devil's advocate and vote Satan: Aside from Adi being too ridiculous, he would ruin the country, just like Stalin.

Satan at least would let the people ruin themselves. Rather that than a dictatorship.

dude... Mussolini isn't half as bad as Hitler... He just tagged along with HItler because he feared his neighbor. He wouldn't want to upset staring down the barrel of a loaded nazi. In fact, there is evidence that he didn't really want to participate in the persecution of jews. He just wanted power.

THE DEVIL!!! Why choose the lesser evil?

O.o.

I love it when people preface their statement with "I'm not a racist, but", because you know they are going to say something racist. <3.
How is it racist?! Hitler was a Christian. I'm not condoning what he did. Nazis are idiots.

But murdering innocent people doesn't make him any less of a Christian than the Puritans that burned witches or the President that started a war for oil. ;)

Most Christians say that people that bomb abortion clinics aren't true Christians. But then a lot of others say they're the only true Christians. Which one is right?

Logically, because we cannot ascertain any objective difference between them, then, to us, anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. Hitler claimed to be a Christian, so he was.

How is it racist?! Hitler was a Christian. I'm not condoning what he did. Nazis are idiots.

Idiot- noun: a person of subnormal intelligence.

If Nazi's were (There are not a lot of Nazis left, they are either all dead or dying. Perhaps you meant Neo Nazis?) idiots, then I don't think they would have gotten as far as they did, and I doubt that they would have raised a war battered country into an economic powerhouse.

Dolf!

He did some good things for the economy, killed less people then Stalin. The devil would already be to buissy in hell, I need attention.

Not that I want to talk about politics...but actually the nazis where idiots! They attacked Russia which was about 10 times stronger as the german army. The center of power was (and still is) in asia, unreachable for the germans, stalin was not the type of guy who would EVER surrender and the Red Army was much larger then all other european armies combined. That's not that bad but the nazis actually did know that.

I'd take the devil.

I mean come on, what has he done in the recent centuries? Cannot remember any atrocities caused by him. Think of all the wars that were fought under the name of god. Was there one army that fought for satan? And where would the world be without his anti-christ teachings in 'sciences' (evolution and stuff) and 'morals' (contraception).

I think we all should take a deep breath and apologise to the devil for giving him such a bad name. :fluffle:



ehh... I better get another beer (which is also a great creation by satan)

Not that I want to talk about politics...but actually the nazis where idiots! They attacked Russia which was about 10 times stronger as the german army. The center of power was (and still is) in asia, unreachable for the germans, stalin was not the type of guy who would EVER surrender and the Red Army was much larger then all other european armies combined. That's not that bad but the nazis actually did know that.
It was the perfect time. The nazis allmost won, but the Russians were to stubbern to agree with their loss.

Yeknomia!!! Quit Taking My Ideas And Putting Them On The Forums Without My Consent!! Can't You Leave An Insane Migraine Inducing Controversy In Neptune III Where It Belongs?!!?!?!?!??!

Vagabonds, you are SCREWED.

I'd take Hitler: despite the fact that he was anti...um...-everything, he was a strategic and political genius, disregarding the fact that he was an evil lunatic who rots in the pits of hell.

Besides, it doesn't matter: Satan becomes 'president,' if you will, of the whole word for a grand total of seven years someday, and, who knows, he could start off in America. The Bible never (to my experience) made a specific reference to the location of New Babylon...

Hitler, if still insane, would take out his anger on others.

Stalin might take out his anger on his countrymen (actually, he would).

As for Satan, well, that bastard would demand souls for a tax cut, and i'm not willing to sacrifice that. hehe

Yeknomia!!! Quit Taking My Ideas And Putting Them On The Forums Without My Consent!! Can't You Leave An Insane Migraine Inducing Controversy In Neptune III Where It Belongs?!!?!?!?!??!
You funny man Aveous...

-Partially edited quote from South Pacific

Not that I want to talk about politics...but actually the nazis where idiots! They attacked Russia which was about 10 times stronger as the german army. The center of power was (and still is) in asia, unreachable for the germans, stalin was not the type of guy who would EVER surrender and the Red Army was much larger then all other european armies combined. That's not that bad but the nazis actually did know that.

I agree that they made mistakes, but I would never call them idiots. Plus it wasn't necessarily the Russian army and all it's might the defeated them, it was the elements and the harsh Russian winter.

Hitler. I'd rather have a dead guy running my country.

Hitler. I'd rather have a dead guy running my country.

Ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha!

Oh yes, and, Colodia, in reference to your signature, I already know someone who is quite far advanced in taking over the world, and he's only a Junior.

But, come hither, and we may overthrow this evil oppressor and establish a worldwide oppressive government of our own!

Actually, the Red Army was not that powerfull for most of the war. Plus, most of them were simply conscripts. The Germans, overall, has a far more powerfull military. They had more tanks, aircraft, and heavy guns and their soldiers were better trained. The problem was, they was spread out.

Back on topic. Although I must say that this seems very similar to our last pres. election. Hmmm...

I would pick Hitler because I like facism more than communism. (The few differenced that were between the too. Lol) Plus, German is a cool language. ;) Achtung, die Soviets hat den umkreis durchgebrochen!

Idiot- noun: a person of subnormal intelligence.

If Nazi's were (There are not a lot of Nazis left, they are either all dead or dying. Perhaps you meant Neo Nazis?) idiots, then I don't think they would have gotten as far as they did, and I doubt that they would have raised a war battered country into an economic powerhouse.
http://black-gay.boys-porn.net/college-cock/images/cc_ad2_topleft.jpg

What's your email address? I'd like to sign you up to several dozen black, homosexual porn newsletters, like I did with the last racist I met online.

Granted, I think racism should be completely open. You should be able to talk about why you hate blacks and Jews in public. But it doesn't make you any less of an imbecile.

There's no proof that whites are some kind of "superior" race. In certain parts of Africa, it's often the other way around. In the Middle East and Asia whites don't dominate wealth, either. Besides, it's not wealth that determine a person's worth, but their intelligence and kindness. Statistically, immigrants get higher grades in the U.S. than American citizens. I've found that what determines a person's kindness is generally how poor they are, not the color of their skin. And Hitler's own theory about white supremacy was thrown out the window when Jesse James won in the Olympics.

http://black-gay.boys-porn.net/college-cock/images/cc_ad2_topleft.jpg

What's your email address? I'd like to sign you up to several dozen black, homosexual porn newsletters, like I did with the last racist I met online.

Granted, I think racism should be completely open. You should be able to talk about why you hate blacks and Jews in public. But it doesn't make you any less of an imbecile.

There's no proof that whites are some kind of "superior" race. In certain parts of Africa, it's often the other way around. In the Middle East and Asia whites don't dominate wealth, either. Besides, it's not wealth that determine a person's worth, but their intelligence and kindness. Statistically, immigrants get higher grades in the U.S. than American citizens. I've found that what determines a person's kindness is generally how poor they are, not the color of their skin. And Hitler's own theory about white supremacy was thrown out the window when Jesse James won in the Olympics.

HAHA ok yea I'm just gonna give you my email because you asked for it. No. You have your opinions, I have mine. Did I attack you personally? No. So I think a big FUCK YOU is in order here. :D

Oh and about the Jesse James comment ... it's no suprise since in evolution they're only 200 years out of the jungle running from lions.

I vote Satan. After all, he's never engaged in mass genocide, or started big wars, or even oppressed people (except when they're already dead, but that doesn't matter for our purposes here). Think, if you will, of a world run by Satan (we'll be using the American Fundamentalist type of Satan here). Free porn. Free drugs. Lots and lots of consequence-free sex. Open teaching of evolution, and we'd finally get God out of that Pledge of Allegiance! :D

I pick satan. Hail Satan!

Seriously though, Satan (If we assume him to roughly conform to the Judeo-Christian/Islamic model), unlike the other two wouldn't directly brutalize the populace or make them do anything (the occasional goat-sacrifice aside), instead he'd probably let us ruin ourselves by our own vices. I prefer that style of government.

Also, maybe the national anthem would get written by Slayer or Arch Enemy or someone. That would be pretty cool.

To be serious: Stalin. Hitler was a failure as politician, without the war his policies would have ruined the German economy. He just started a war that made the collapse come quicker.

Stalin took command of an agricultural backwater country and turned it into a great industrialized super power. Yes, his policies did kill many Soviet civilians. Without his industrialization of the USSR, Adolf would have conquered the country and likely won ww2.

Stalin was a good statesman, though very paranoid.

I vote Satan. After all, he's never engaged in mass genocide, or started big wars, or even oppressed people (except when they're already dead, but that doesn't matter for our purposes here). Think, if you will, of a world run by Satan (we'll be using the American Fundamentalist type of Satan here). Free porn. Free drugs. Lots and lots of consequence-free sex. Open teaching of evolution, and we'd finally get God out of that Pledge of Allegiance! :D

You are a mean person. Do you call that freedom? I don't. And, how do you know that he wouldn't opress you> His ultimate goal is our and God's downfall. If he could, he'd force you to sin but keep any of the joy from it. Say, compulsory murder of friends and family, then suicide.

Oh yes, and it wouldn't be open teaching of evolution, it would be required teaching of "Satan is God, bow down before Him!"

Stalin, because although he is ruthless, he is a very strong leader, and he only killed people because of their political stance, not their nationality. Thus in Stalin's USSR everyone had a chance of climing to the top, or going to the GULAG.

The Devil if the Nation was so bad that the candiates were those three then who better than give the Nation to and rename it Hell. :)

If you're going to look at this question logically, the Devil is immediatley out of the question. There is no way Satan himself could lead a nation successfully. That brings me to Stalin, besides sharing the "St" in the beginning of both their names, they both share a lot in common. Stalin was an uneducated idiot, could barely run a country, and is just as evil.

Hitler. The lesser of the three evils when looked at seriously. Killed less people than Stalin, was more intelligent than Stalin, wasn't a retard. Hitler has the most potential to lead a country to greatness, thus, I vote for Hitler.

The conversation around this issue seems to ignore the major point here.

I assume the original poster and question asker is using this question to display why compulsory voting is bad, because by forcing the people to vote for a bad candidate they are in some small way justifying that persons actions.

My question is: why in the world isn't there a write-in option? Compulsory voting, or any kind of voting seems to hardly work if there is not the option for write-in candidates.

The conversation around this issue seems to ignore the major point here.

I assume the original poster and question asker is using this question to display why compulsory voting is bad, because by forcing the people to vote for a bad candidate they are in some small way justifying that persons actions.

My question is: why in the world isn't there a write-in option? Compulsory voting, or any kind of voting seems to hardly work if there is not the option for write-in candidates.


You can write in your own candidate. If I don't like the choices for the mayor, I just put my own name in and let everyone else decide. I haven't checked to see if you can do that for the president, though. I think you can.

Stalin, because although he is ruthless, he is a very strong leader, and he only killed people because of their political stance, not their nationality. Thus in Stalin's USSR everyone had a chance of climing to the top, or going to the GULAG.

Actually that's a misconception. Stalin didn't kill people because of their political stance. He didn't kill them because of anything, he just killed them, in droves. Some of them were probably genuine capitalist dissenters, but he sent literally millions of workers and simple farmers to their graves too.

Also, I believe in the last few years of his reign, he did actually have an "anti-judaism" crackdown. All throughout the revolution, christian churches were also pillaged and burnt, and Stalin certainly didn't pull his punches once he inherited Lenin's throne of wanton killing and death.

Actually that's a misconception. Stalin didn't kill people because of their political stance. He didn't kill them because of anything, he just killed them, in droves. Some of them were probably genuine capitalist dissenters, but he sent literally millions of workers and simple farmers to their graves too.

Also, I believe in the last few years of his reign, he did actually have an "anti-judaism" crackdown. All throughout the revolution, christian churches were also pillaged and burnt, and Stalin certainly didn't pull his punches once he inherited Lenin's throne of wanton killing and death.

I picked Stalin. I'm still working on why exactly, but I think Hitler was worse for persecuting the Jews and the Christians.

Not that Stalin didn't persecute Jews and Christians, but he hated all of his subjects equally.

Whichever one is the easiest to kill.

I would vote for Josef Stalin because the other two are obviously evil. There is a good chance that the evilness does not come with the last name and Josef Stalin wont be as bad as Joseph Stalin. Heck, he may even be pretty good.

HAHA ok yea I'm just gonna give you my email because you asked for it. No. You have your opinions, I have mine. Did I attack you personally? No. So I think a big FUCK YOU is in order here. :D

Oh and about the Jesse James comment ... it's no suprise since in evolution they're only 200 years out of the jungle running from lions.
You do realize that the oldest human skeleton was found near Mt. Kilimanjaro? In other words, all human life originated from southeast Africa, and then migrated. As they moved to new areas (colder in Europe, more dry in Asia), they evolved into the different races now.

So, no, we're all from the same seed, brother.

Ok, there is no devil...

Stalin was a whimpering pussy....

Hitler, on drugs but somewhat respectable on evilness...

I'll go with hitler.

I obviously hate both Hitler and Stalin and they have each been responsible for the death of millions of people but if I had to choose one it would be Stalin because at least he didn't hold the insane beliefs about racial superiority that Hitler did.

You funny man Aveous...

-Partially edited quote from South Pacific


Technically, it was my idea, check the region of Neptune III, see if that post is still there, I'm the one that thought of it.

i have to go with hitler because i'm not jewish. i have nothing to fear from his racial supremecy issues. not that i'm prime example of an aryan, but i don't believe that i qualify for any persecution under his ideals...
perhaps stalin would be best for the people as a whole? but i ignore that because i'm selfish and probably personally have a better chance of getting through it ok under hitler. satan is right out of it because hes the prince of darkness and all the bad stuff. i mean seriously, he has to be 10000000 times worse than any mortal could be, hes freaking satan. satan.

Let's say you are in a nation where voting is compulsory. The three candidates are Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and the Devil Himself. Who would you vote for?
praise cheesus!
Muhahahahah... this should be interesting....

stalin=good, hitler=bad, devil=non-existant

Actually that's a misconception. Stalin didn't kill people because of their political stance. He didn't kill them because of anything, he just killed them, in droves. Some of them were probably genuine capitalist dissenters, but he sent literally millions of workers and simple farmers to their graves too.

Also, I believe in the last few years of his reign, he did actually have an "anti-judaism" crackdown. All throughout the revolution, christian churches were also pillaged and burnt, and Stalin certainly didn't pull his punches once he inherited Lenin's throne of wanton killing and death.
Oh yea, you are right: I forgot about it. The Doctors Case.

stalin=good, hitler=bad, devil=non-existant
If you were the devil, you would say that devil was non existant too to bring our guard down.

Hmmmmmm.....

;)

HItler. He seems the more capable leader.

Ok... people, Hitler was no competent leader! All the succesful policies were on the advice of competent people, Hjalmar Schacht for one. Hitler's spending policies would have crippled the economy if the war hadn't destroyed the country and dethroned the NSDAP.

The purges of Stalin was mainly the result of paranoia but really, he was the more competent. Like I said before he reformed the USSR and turned it into maybe the strongest superpower in the world, this is subject of debate. Yes, millions died.

But many Russians today believe that those deaths were necessary for the nation's progress. Without a doubt without the USSR Germany would have remained Nazi, don't give me that crap about the US being the big winner, it was on the fields of the Soviet Union world war two was decided. Tanks built by factories which had been built by, yes, Stalin.

The Devil, even though I am atheist, represents supreme evil. I honestly believe you shoould have offered Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, or some other "interesting" statesman.

I would like to know why people here call Stalin "pussy", "retarded", etc. He didn't leave Moscow when the Germans had it within their grasp. He didn't leave for some lair in Siberia, which would have been probable if Hitler was Russian. Face it: No Stalin, no powerful USSR to defeat Germany.

All this goes to show what a wonderful system of government representative democracy is. Power to the people! Fill in that bubble! POWER!

It doesn't very well matter, 2 are dead and the other is a fictional character.

Well, dead people are always more interesting than living. If you type too much bad stuff about living people you might get sued...

I'd vote for the devil. If you interpret the Bible as it is shown in the book of Job, he is limited to do only what God instructs him to do and no more. Hitler and Stalin have no such controls, and could do even greater evil.

Hey, if the devil's like Al Pacino, he gets my vote just for the coolness factor (Scarface Satan :cool: ).

I'd say Satan because he doesn't exist. ;) That and also, he might be less oppressive than the other two (He would want millions of people to be evil so they could go to hell, right?)

Totally the devil.

I'm not a racist, but I had to pick Hitler, because he's the only Christian out of all three.
That isn't recist is it?

That isn't recist is it?

It isn't really racist, it's...religionist?

Anyway, I'd choose Satan. I'm Catholic, but he's a total badass.

He [Stalin] didn't leave for some lair in Siberia, which would have been probable if Hitler was Russian.


Hitler didn't leave Berlin when the Russians had it in their grasp. >.>

Although I guess it could be argued that he didn't really have anywhere to go...

:roll:
I laugh at all the people flustered by Plutophobias satirical comment.

I am getting scarred when Hitler is leading in an election. Granted, this election thing is not overly serious.

Hitler was a Nazi.

Stalin ruined the prestige of the Great Soviet Union.

The Devil is the Bringer of Light, so it's a pretty easy choice.

It's a trick question. All three of them are the same being. But alas, I'll vote for the devil, at least he doesn't sugarcoat things.

I picked hitler...

Heil mein Fuhrer!

As someone said, the Soviet army was basicly conscripts... They in reality were all numbers. Allthough it could be argued the T-34 tank was the best tank in WWII since the Panzer tank, and the King Tiger tanks wheren't large in numbers.

Where is the option to take up a sniping position outside their bedrooms? :(

Why aren't people voting for Satan? I really like the Paradise Lost version of Satan-a guy who had the courage to stand up to the arrogance of God. That's what I would want in a leader.

The Devil kicks serious ass dude! Vote Satan! Plus, in the movie Crossroads, he's even better...The Devil's a rocker!

What are Satan's policies?

I say Hitler purely out of self-interest - I have blonde hair, blue eyes and am baptized Christian. :)

I'm not a racist, but I had to pick Hitler, because he's the only Christian out of all three.
I'd pick him because stalin didn't need to have reasons to kill people, hitler killed people if they were jewish, gay, gypsies, handicapped, or disagreed with him, since I'm not jewish, gay a gypsies or handicapped, all I'd have to do is not argue with him and I'd stay alive

I can't believe most of you guys would pick the devil or hitler over stalin. The cold war really got to you jive turkeys didn't it?

Hitler. He was a saint (not that he was) compared to Stalin and its just plain simply why I wouldn't vote for the Devil.

With Hitler, you get a totalitarian state in which you have little freedom but more freedom that Stalin would ever allow.

With Stalin, you are forbidden to practice Christianity in any forms and made to be atheists who worship Stalin.

With the Devil, your soul is lost and you spend eternity burning in Hell.

Hitler was the most efficient tyrant in modern times, Stalin was an idiot who led his country to ruin. The Devil doesn't give a **** about anything but himself and taking control of Creation.

I haven't checked to see if you can do that for the president, though. I think you can.

Yes, you can.

In theory, 60% of the nation could write-in Mickey Mouse as president. That's one of the purposes of the Electoral college.... If no real decision exists, they can make it for you. ^^

Yes, you can.

In theory, 60% of the nation could write-in Mickey Mouse as president. That's one of the purposes of the Electoral college.... If no real decision exists, they can make it for you. ^^

electoral college is weak. it makes my puppy sad.

electoral college is weak. it makes my puppy sad.

Electoral college is in the constitution to prevent a direct democracy from existing (as it would be unconstitutional). It allows the government to theoretically govern itself if the voters become so indecisive that no one gets a majority. (not like in 2000 or 2004, i mean so indecisive that no candidate gets over 35%)

Unless I am mistaken, I believe a written-in candidate has only recieved 8% of the pop. vote once, but I don't remember who it was. I'm probably a little off, though.

Electoral college is in the constitution to prevent a direct democracy from existing (as it would be unconstitutional). It allows the government to theoretically govern itself if the voters become so indecisive that no one gets a majority. (not like in 2000 or 2004, i mean so indecisive that no candidate gets over 35%)

Unless I am mistaken, I believe a written-in candidate has only recieved 8% of the pop. vote once, but I don't remember who it was. I'm probably a little off, though.

Actually, the reason for the electoral college was because they didn't have an effective way to count ALL the votes in the country within an acceptable margin of error back then. So the government made it the state's responsibility to count the votes by district, after they set up the house and senate.

Each electoral vote represents a representative in the house. The electors are given permission to cast their votes in the electoral college based on the ratios for their home area. Theoretically, an elector could switch sides and vote for a candidate other than the one who actually received the popular vote in the county they represent. However, this hasn't happened lately... I think there would be a public outcry if it did.

I would have to go with the Devil himself. The other two have had their shot at governing nations on earth and both turned out to be distasteful. I say give the Devil a shot... you never hear of him committing mass genocide (although that probably has to do with the fact that all the people he rules are already dead).