Gore was the one that requested the recount, not Bush. Gore was never declared the winner. They projected EARLY that Gore would get the electoral votes, but that was even before the polls closed in the panhandle. Once the actual vote count came in, Bush won the election, Gore even conceded to him, but took it back when he was requested the recount.


Don't make history up.

 

Big mistake by the TV networks projecting Gore was the winner. It was always too close to call before all votes were counted.

---

Oops that's factually incorrect


Why your making it up!

Florida state law is why there was a recount. Not Al Gore

Not making anything up, just didn't state it completely correct. Gore REQUESTED a hand recount in certain counties, Florida law mandates recount by machine. There's that pesky request word.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Big mistake by the TV networks projecting Gore was the winner. It was always too close to call before all votes were counted.

It wasn't even close at the time they did it, half the state still had an hour or so left before they stopped voting.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

It wasn't even close at the time they did it, half the state still had an hour or so left before they stopped voting.

 

Weird. It was close enough for Bush to win by only 537 votes when he was certified.

---

Weird. It was close enough for Bush to win by only 537 votes when he was certified.

It was when it was all finally counted, but with a portion of the state still voting, they couldn't know it at the time.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

It was when it was all finally counted, but with a portion of the state still voting, they couldn't know it at the time.

 

So they should not have projected Al Gore would be the winner.

---

So they should not have projected Al Gore would be the winner.

Nope.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

You forgot to add Clinton and Obama to that list. They were on it too.

 

 

 

... and Obama.

 

Yeah, like I said before, I'm aware there have been presidents and popes and Ghandis and Groves on the cover of Time.

 

Donald's not there because he's like Obama or Bill.  He's there for his nationalist populist "movement", and the parallels to 1933 Germany are there.  The US isn't in nearly as bad shape, and Donald's not nearly as much the psychopath.  But Donald's the president because of slim victories in depressed areas of the country where just enough believed his hollow promises to restore "greatness" to an already great nation, while blaming outsiders such as Muslims, Mexicans, and the Chinese for stealing our majesty, blaming the "dishonest media" the entire time for calling him out on these bigotries.

 

I'm hardly the only one to notice, and I'm concerned.  Perhaps you should be too.

---

Yeah, like I said before, I'm aware there have been presidents and popes and Ghandis and Groves on the cover of Time.

 

Donald's not there because he's like Obama or Bill.  He's there for his nationalist populist "movement", and the parallels to 1933 Germany are there.  The US isn't in nearly as bad shape, and Donald's not nearly as much the psychopath.  But Donald's the president because of slim victories in depressed areas of the country where just enough believed his hollow promises to restore "greatness" to an already great nation, while blaming outsiders such as Muslims, Mexicans, and the Chinese for stealing our majesty, blaming the "dishonest media" the entire time for calling him out on these bigotries.

 

I'm hardly the only one to notice, and I'm concerned.  Perhaps you should be too.

 

Donald is not the president.

 

Donald was elected because people thought he is not as bad as their other options on the ballot.

---

MAN of the year


As the orange insists


Here's to you mr Trump


An ode


https://youtu.be/rEMsjeq43_U

---

Yeah, like I said before, I'm aware there have been presidents and popes and Ghandis and Groves on the cover of Time.

 

Donald's not there because he's like Obama or Bill.  He's there for his nationalist populist "movement", and the parallels to 1933 Germany are there.  The US isn't in nearly as bad shape, and Donald's not nearly as much the psychopath.  But Donald's the president because of slim victories in depressed areas of the country where just enough believed his hollow promises to restore "greatness" to an already great nation, while blaming outsiders such as Muslims, Mexicans, and the Chinese for stealing our majesty, blaming the "dishonest media" the entire time for calling him out on these bigotries.

 

I'm hardly the only one to notice, and I'm concerned.  Perhaps you should be too.

 

So, you say he was likely put in there because of the similarities to 1933 Germany but say that the comparisons to Hitler were incidental? 

 

Of course they weren't going to put them into the same pose and setting, but after what you said, is it hard to believe that they didn't imitate Hitler's picture in Trump's?

---

"Why Time's Trump Cover is a Subversive Work of Political Art"

 

This article is from a left-leaning website that was shared by one of my more liberal facebook friends.  It explores many images in the photo, and expounds on the possible symbolism of each.  A seated Hitler Time cover shows up at the end as a comparison

 

 

Fstopper's article on the comparison

 

This article examines the photograph from the perspective of an artist photographer, and is pretty damn interesting.  One important note on this one is that the Hitler portrait that is raised in this controversy is actually NOT Hitler's 1938 Man of the Year cover, but the same one from 1941 that the "Forward" article references.

 

While in both portraits the subject sort of recedes into the frame, and both subjects are seated, I'll hold that the resemblance between the 2 photos is coincidental, and it's possible that the photographer (Nadav Kander) had never seen the 1941 portrait (and it's a portrait, not a photograph).  As the article states, the interwebs seem to be divided on the subject.

 

Make up your own mind, and I won't be able to argue your feelings on the matter.  It's really in the eye of the beholder.  But check out both articles.

---

Both have distinctive, but different, hair styles.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Both have distinctive, but different, hair styles.

 

and hair colors

---

So they should not have projected Al Gore would be the winner.

That's the only way they could suppress the west Florida Republican vote. And it almost worked.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato