@goldie ... You're probably right, but it's not fair to assume that the nominations aren't those who people think are the "best" (...not greatest? That screws up your whole "impact" thing, doesn't it? Yes, I'm nitpicking, forgive me.) leaders in history. They might not have been first choices, because someone else had already been nominated or whatever, but they are the nominees nonetheless, and Stalin's absence despite Hitler's presence is pretty damning to the idea that impact, be it positive or negative, merits his being here in the first place, because Stalin's impact is arguably greater in both the positive and the negative.
@Tr ... I know Macchiavelli wasn't the biggest ass ever. He wasn't Hitler. It's not inconceivable to say that he could have been were he given the same chance, though. His ideas were similarly "efficient" as Hitler's were and similar too in that it seemed his brain, like Hitler's, lacked the giant squishy chunk on the left that supposedly regulates empathy and care for the rest of the human species.
As for your Alexander thing, you're missing my point. We had people left out of the musician tournament too, and we chose to grandfather a few obvious choices that we left off in. That doesn't mean that the nominees we selected weren't, in our collective minds, the greatest, and that doesn't mean that someone worthy wasn't left off, but you can't tell me that though Stalin wasn't nominated, he could have been, and therefore I have no point. That's crap. The fact of the matter is that he wasn't nominated and I would like to know why, and I would love to hear why particularly from the person that nominated Hitler instead.
But yeah. Current matchup. We'll get back to Hitler, I promise. Epic travesties like that don't rest forever.
)
Official Announcement
)
)
)
)